06.09.2014 Views

Engineering - Royal Australian Navy

Engineering - Royal Australian Navy

Engineering - Royal Australian Navy

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Volume 1 Issue 1<br />

June 2001<br />

NAVAL<br />

b u l l e t i n<br />

<strong>Engineering</strong>


NAVAL<strong>Engineering</strong><br />

b u l l e t i n<br />

Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

Contents<br />

Foreword................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................2<br />

CNE Introduction..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................3<br />

Word from the Editor’s Desk.........................................................................................................................................................................................................5<br />

Word from the Desk Adjacent to the Editor’s...........................................................................................................................................................5<br />

What Does MHQ’s <strong>Engineering</strong> Division Do?............................................................................................................................................................6<br />

The Impending Extinction of the Naval Engineer?............................................................................................................................................9<br />

Electric Propulsion for Surface Combatants............................................................................................................................................................13<br />

Managing <strong>Engineering</strong> & Supply Categories.........................................................................................................................................................20<br />

FIMA Sydney Circuit Card Assembly—Test and Repair Facility....................................................................................................22<br />

ADF Aerospace <strong>Engineering</strong> Professional Development........................................................................................................................ 24<br />

Professional Engineers in the <strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Australian</strong> <strong>Navy</strong>..................................................................................................................................25<br />

DNOP News......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................27<br />

Officers’ Promotions.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................30<br />

Sailors’ Promotions..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................31<br />

LPA’s, The Opportunity Beckons............................................................................................................................................................................................36<br />

A Mine for Posterity...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................38<br />

HMAS WALLER’s Brush with the Cookie Cutter Shark.............................................................................................................................39<br />

A Word from the <strong>Engineering</strong> Sailor’s Poster.......................................................................................................................................................40<br />

NAVSYS Professional Officer Development..............................................................................................................................................................41<br />

2000 Graduates......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 42<br />

Defence force Qualifications Recognised................................................................................................................................................................. 42<br />

Hot Corrosion of Marine Gas Turbine Blades........................................................................................................................................................43<br />

Solar Sailor....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 50<br />

Maintaining Proficiency Levels in <strong>Engineering</strong>....................................................................................................................................................51<br />

Warfare division NBCD Cell in Maritime Headquarters............................................................................................................................52<br />

Air Conditioning & Ventilation systems on Surface Ships ...................................................................................................................54<br />

History of Maintenance in the RAN.................................................................................................................................................................................. 60<br />

The Implications of Revised MARPOL Regulations on RAN Tankers.....................................................................................62<br />

The ANZAC Solution to the Technical Regulation System..................................................................................................................65<br />

Demographics, People and Technology—A Supervisor’s Perspective................................................................................... 68<br />

Dedicated to the Engine room Depts., HMA Corvettes.............................................................................................................................. 70<br />

Ha Ha Pages.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................71<br />

The Rivet.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................72<br />

1


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

Foreword<br />

By Vice Admiral David Shackleton AO RAN<br />

Chief of <strong>Navy</strong><br />

Welcome to the first edition of the new Naval <strong>Engineering</strong><br />

Bulletin. This Bulletin is all about communicating with our<br />

people. Although it has a focus on engineering, it is not<br />

meant to be just for the “techos”. I commend it to the wider<br />

defence community as means of sharing ideas, evoking<br />

thought and providing feedback on this very important<br />

aspect of the RAN.<br />

As the Chief of a modern <strong>Navy</strong>, I see our harnessing of technology<br />

as fundamental to our ongoing success and effectiveness.<br />

<strong>Engineering</strong> is the business of putting technology<br />

into practice. <strong>Engineering</strong> is, and will continue to be, fundamental<br />

to the ongoing operation and effectiveness of our<br />

<strong>Navy</strong>.<br />

We have come a long way with <strong>Engineering</strong> in the RAN.<br />

Our drive to be at the technological forefront has gained us<br />

a war fighting edge and allows us to enjoy world- wide reputation<br />

for excellence. In the past, the RAN has relied heavily<br />

on using other <strong>Navy</strong>’s platforms and with that came a<br />

host of engineering, logistic and training support systems.<br />

In today’s RAN, however, we have now gone our own way in<br />

many respects through in-house Ship and Submarine building<br />

programs and on going weapon system integration programs<br />

in all our platforms, including the new Sea Sprite<br />

helicopters. We have come of age, but with that comes the<br />

impost of being a “parent <strong>Navy</strong>”. This carries with it enormous<br />

responsibilities and challenges and engineering prowess<br />

will be the key to our future. I look forward to reading<br />

about these issues in this, and future editions of the Naval<br />

<strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin.<br />

discuss the engineering aspects<br />

of safety and risk, and<br />

as an adjunct to the RAN<br />

safety brochure “Seaworthy”.<br />

There are many facets to engineering<br />

that might be addressed in this Bulletin. To many,<br />

“engineering” evokes images of coal and steam and lands<br />

of “whirling death” and to others it is all about analysing<br />

complex electronic circuit faults or debugging software<br />

problems. In any case there is many a good “warrie” to be<br />

spun, and hopefully a few lessons to be learnt along the<br />

way. Importantly, there are also many “people issues” to be<br />

discussed and the Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin should provide<br />

an excellent forum to do so. I hope the Naval <strong>Engineering</strong><br />

Bulletin will continue to cater for a mix of interests<br />

as it has attempted to do this time, and I encourage you to<br />

contribute articles for future editions.<br />

I trust you will enjoy this first edition of the Naval <strong>Engineering</strong><br />

Bulletin. Engineers make it happen!<br />

David Shackleton<br />

Vice Admiral AO RAN<br />

Chief of <strong>Navy</strong><br />

Leading edge technology and striving to be the best does<br />

not, however, come without risk. As the <strong>Navy</strong>’s Safety Manager<br />

I carry the ultimate responsibility for safety and for<br />

the minimisation of risk. Whilst we have relatively mature<br />

risk management systems in place, the surest way to manage<br />

risk is to eliminate it all together. In the majority of<br />

cases, the ultimate way to eliminate risk is to engineer it<br />

out of a system, or to ensure it is not embedded in the design<br />

in the first case. Under the technical regulatory framework,<br />

I rely on engineers to advise and to assure me as to<br />

safety and fitness for purpose of our Ships, Submarines and<br />

Aircraft. I see the Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin as a forum to<br />

2


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

CNE Introduction<br />

I remember when I was a Lieutenant at sea in the late 1970’s<br />

eagerly awaiting the next issue of the Fleet Maintenance<br />

Bulletin. It was full of interesting articles by engineers and<br />

technicians; some serious discussing issues facing engineering,<br />

some informative about new technologies that were to<br />

be introduced into <strong>Navy</strong> (like gas turbines!), and some for a<br />

bit of a laugh like someone proposing we could launch gliders<br />

by attaching them to 4.5" shells. The articles were<br />

graphically illustrated with cartoons and as a young engineer<br />

I was fascinated by the Bulletin as it gave me a window<br />

on the world of engineering in <strong>Navy</strong>. It was a forum for<br />

communication, information and discussion of issues. It was<br />

part of the Profession of Naval <strong>Engineering</strong>. The Fleet Maintenance<br />

Bulletin evolved into the Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin<br />

in the late ‘80’s and then just disappeared a few years<br />

ago.<br />

With this issue we see the return of the Naval <strong>Engineering</strong><br />

Bulletin. It will again be the forum for communication, information<br />

and discussion of engineering issues in <strong>Navy</strong>. It<br />

will be your window to our new world of engineering in<br />

<strong>Navy</strong>.<br />

As CNE, I am the professional head of <strong>Engineering</strong> in the<br />

RAN and Head of Corps for the <strong>Engineering</strong> Branch. I am<br />

responsible for providing CN with specialist advice on engineering,<br />

defining <strong>Navy</strong>’s engineering requirements and advising<br />

on engineering personnel matters. I am concerned<br />

that the contribution that engineering expertise and experience<br />

is making within the <strong>Navy</strong> has been declining for a<br />

number of years, and as a result the status of engineering<br />

in <strong>Navy</strong> needs significant improvement. My aim is to promote<br />

the contribution that sound engineering advice, professional<br />

judgement and the skills of engineers and<br />

technicians, both uniformed and civilian can make to <strong>Navy</strong>.<br />

During the last ten years the RAN has undergone significant<br />

organisation and procedural changes that have impacted<br />

on the delivery of engineering. Our current structure,<br />

training, administration and employment of engineering<br />

personnel may not now align well with the needs of a modern<br />

<strong>Navy</strong> operating smaller, minimum manned ships that<br />

commercially supported. The proposed new acquisitions<br />

outlined in the recent White Paper will also effect <strong>Navy</strong>’s<br />

requirement for engineering<br />

expertise.<br />

While engineering in <strong>Navy</strong><br />

today is different to when I<br />

was a Lieutenant at sea in a<br />

DDG, it is just part of an evolution of engineering that has<br />

seen the change from sail to steam, from paddlewheels to<br />

screw propellers, from burning coal to burning liquid fuel,<br />

from large calibre guns to missiles, and the list goes on.<br />

These changes in technology have been accompanied by<br />

changes to manning, employment, skill requirements, training,<br />

logistic support and management. So be reassured,<br />

there is still a fundamental need for engineering in <strong>Navy</strong>, it<br />

is just different now, and we need to adapt to the changes.<br />

My objectives as CNE include:<br />

• Consulting widely and improving communication<br />

amongst engineering personnel by initiatives such<br />

as this Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin, and engineering<br />

seminars;<br />

• Reviewing <strong>Navy</strong>’s requirement of its engineering personnel<br />

and how they may best contribute to <strong>Navy</strong><br />

capability. This would include how engineering personnel<br />

should be organised and structured, and<br />

what education, training and experience they require.<br />

A high priority will be examining the employment<br />

of technical personnel ashore and the<br />

employment of junior engineering officers;<br />

• Examining what engineering and technical personnel<br />

require of <strong>Navy</strong> in such areas as job satisfaction,<br />

career progression, and personal development;<br />

• Refining the engineering processes within <strong>Navy</strong>; and<br />

• Being a key player in the new officer promotion system<br />

and in decisions impacting technical personnel.<br />

• Raising the profile of engineering in <strong>Navy</strong>.<br />

In summary, my objective is to reinvigorate Naval <strong>Engineering</strong>!<br />

So enjoy this first issue of the Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin. To<br />

ensure it continues I encourage you all to contribute to it.<br />

3


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

Finally, I would like to thank those people without whose<br />

efforts this Bulletin would still be just another good idea -<br />

CAPT Craig Kerr, LCDR Tom Munneke and MIDN Angela<br />

Andrews.<br />

Editorial Board<br />

Ken Joseph<br />

Commodore, RAN<br />

CNE<br />

About the Author<br />

Commodore Kenneth W. Joseph was born 16 April 1954 in Sydney.<br />

He joined the <strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Australian</strong> Naval College in 1971. He<br />

then attended the University of New South Wales in 1973,<br />

graduating in 1976 with a Bachelor of Electrical <strong>Engineering</strong><br />

Degree. This was followed by engineering courses with the<br />

<strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Navy</strong> and with the United States <strong>Navy</strong> in 1977/78.<br />

He served in the destroyer, HMAS PERTH from 1978 - 80, where<br />

he managed the ASW and Gunnery systems. As a young Lieutenant<br />

in 1981/82 he served on the staff of the Director Naval<br />

Weapons Design, primarily concerned with the design and<br />

manufacture of the <strong>Australian</strong> indigenous sonar known as<br />

“MULLOKA”. From 1982 - 85 he served as the Resident Naval<br />

Engineer at the sonar manufacturer’s plant.<br />

In 1985 he returned to sea as the Weapons Electrical <strong>Engineering</strong><br />

Officer of HMAS PERTH which won awards for Gunnery<br />

and Missile system excellence, and the effectiveness of<br />

ASW, AIO and Communications systems. In 1987 he was<br />

posted ashore as the Officer in Charge of the Trials Unit at the<br />

<strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Australian</strong> <strong>Navy</strong> Trials and Assessing Unit. His responsibilities<br />

included the trials and acceptance recommendations<br />

of all new, modified or overhauled ships, aircraft and other<br />

operational systems.<br />

In 1991, he was posted to the Naval Postgraduate School in<br />

Monterey, California to pursue a Master of Science degree in<br />

Management. His thesis addressed Operational Test and<br />

Evaluation (OT&E), and he graduated With Distinction in<br />

1992. On returning to Australia in February 1993 he served<br />

with the Director Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Requirements - Warfare<br />

Systems where he progressed policies on OT&E and Operational<br />

Software <strong>Engineering</strong> Management.<br />

In November 1993, he was posted as the <strong>Engineering</strong> and Support<br />

Director for the Offshore Patrol Combatant Project, where<br />

he was responsible for the management of the ship design<br />

and proposed Integrated Logistic Support during the Project<br />

Design Phase. In February 1995, he was promoted to Captain<br />

and appointed as the Director Capability Development and<br />

Analysis in Force Development (Sea). The appointment as<br />

the Minehunter Coastal Project Director followed in December<br />

1996 where he achieved the successful delivery of the first<br />

two ships. He was promoted to Commodore in December 1999<br />

and posted as the inaugural Director General Naval Systems<br />

in March 2000. He was appointed as the Chief Naval Engineer<br />

in September 2000.<br />

Chairman<br />

Captain Craig G. Kerr, RAN<br />

Members<br />

<strong>Engineering</strong> Advisory Council (EAC)<br />

Editor<br />

Lieutenant Commander Tom Munneke, RAN<br />

Published by<br />

Defence Publishing Service<br />

Disclaimer<br />

The views expressed in this Bulletin are the personal views<br />

of the authors, and unless otherwise stated, do not in any<br />

way reflect <strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Australian</strong> <strong>Navy</strong> Policy<br />

Deadline<br />

December 2001 Edition<br />

5 October 2001<br />

Contributions should be sent to<br />

The Editor,<br />

Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin<br />

CP4-7-138<br />

Campbell Park ACT 2600<br />

Telephone: (02) 6266 4212<br />

Fax: (02) 6266 2388<br />

or email: navalengineeringbulletin@cbr.defence.gov.au<br />

Distribution<br />

To be added to the distribution list contact the Editor.<br />

4


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

Word from the Editor’s Desk<br />

My sincere thank-you must go out to those people who have the farsightedness<br />

that the RAN engineering community required a conduit to articulate<br />

the views of its personnel and contributed to its reappearance; namely the<br />

Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin. The June 2001 submissions are varied in both size<br />

and content and should spark an interest in most of us. The articles deal<br />

with ‘The Job We Do’ to researched papers which have previously been submitted<br />

for inclusion in <strong>Engineering</strong> Society journals. Unfortunately not all<br />

contributions made this bulletin, but we will be holding space in future additions.<br />

It is a matter of achieving balance and thus overall interest. It is<br />

envisaged that the bulletin should reflect all engineering streams, aeronautical,<br />

marine, ordnance and weapon, for both the professional engineer and<br />

techos alike. Thus future submission should come from the broad streams<br />

of engineering personnel. A submission on your job, your organisation, your<br />

ideas, your expectation, your curiosity or just a ditty will be appreciated. Do<br />

not forget the graphic input. It’s acknowledged that both individually and collectively we are extremely busy and involved<br />

in our own particular part in the ADF but it’s critical that some time is spent on expressing those issues, matters that relate<br />

to us or just to press your case to like minded people.<br />

Should there be any topics you feel need to be covered in future issues, be they <strong>Engineering</strong> specific, or general bulletin<br />

layout please write to us. Letters to the Editor will also be appreciated to keep us on our toes. I have enjoyed the involvement<br />

and editing the revived Bulletin and hope that the challenge will be met to continue its publication. We engineers and<br />

techos deserve it.<br />

Lieutenant Commander Tom Munneke<br />

Word from the Desk adjacent to the<br />

Editor’s<br />

A few short months ago this Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin was still just a ‘good<br />

idea’. Finally we are down to the business end of things - and I hope everyone<br />

out there enjoys reading this magazine as much as we enjoyed putting it<br />

together.<br />

All I have to say is a great amount of thanks to all those people who submitted<br />

articles, and especially to those who conveyed their encouragement and<br />

praise for this project. Sadly we couldn’t print all the articles that were submitted,<br />

including my own commentary on how to make the <strong>Navy</strong> more effective<br />

(by reversing the chain of command - put the Midshipmen in charge!)<br />

however everything that wasn’t included this time has been collated for use<br />

in the next edition. Keep those contributions flowing! Thanks also have to<br />

go to Rob Corrigan for his graphical contribution.<br />

The future of this magazine is in your hands, so let’s maintain the enthusiasm and keep it happening.<br />

Midshipman Angela Andrews<br />

5


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

What Does MHQ’S <strong>Engineering</strong> Division<br />

Do?<br />

By CMDR Damien Allan, RAN<br />

This article is intended to re-acquaint the wider engineering<br />

community with the purpose and activities of the Chief<br />

Staff Officer (<strong>Engineering</strong>) (CSO(E)) organisation given the<br />

vast changes of the last few years, as well as introduce the<br />

incumbent Fleet Engineers. The many changes throughout<br />

the <strong>Navy</strong> have not appreciably changed the structure<br />

and function of the <strong>Engineering</strong> Division at Maritime Headquarters<br />

(MHQ), but the relationships and dynamics of the<br />

new players do seem to constantly evolve and change. In<br />

particular, the creation of the Force Element Group (FEG)<br />

concept has led to some hard thinking about the division<br />

of labour between MHQ and the FEGs.<br />

The focus of MHQ is ostensibly at three levels. The first is to<br />

oversee the daily exchange of information between ships<br />

and MHQ to ensure those problems and issues, such as Urgent<br />

Defects (URDEF), are addressed appropriately. The<br />

<strong>Engineering</strong> Division’s (ENGDIV) concentration of wide technical<br />

and personnel experience results in a synergy that<br />

can be used to lock onto and solve problems quickly, allowing<br />

ENGDIV to “punch beyond its weight”. Often the<br />

Fleet Engineers act as a sanity check to ensure that the root<br />

causes of problems are identified when the incoming information<br />

doesn’t quite sound right. This watching brief<br />

extends to all classes of ship, regardless of who is the Administrative<br />

Authority.<br />

The second level of focus relates to ENGDIV’s audit function<br />

of MFUs. This is to advise the Maritime Commander<br />

(MC) whether his ships are safe and capable of accomplishing<br />

their required missions, and involves assessing both the<br />

ships’ material state and overall departmental efficiency.<br />

To this end, the Fleet Hull <strong>Engineering</strong> Officer (FHEO), Fleet<br />

Marine <strong>Engineering</strong> Officer (FMEO) and Fleet Weapons<br />

Electrical <strong>Engineering</strong> Officer (FWEEO) are available to advise<br />

and discuss any problems faced by ships’ technical<br />

departments, and have the authority to set policy on operational<br />

engineering practice in the Fleet.<br />

The third level of focus is in the long-term development of<br />

the Fleet’s engineering capability. This may be to provide<br />

technical backing for specific issues being addressed by the<br />

MC, but more frequently involves progressing people’s qualifications<br />

via the various Charge Programs and Boards. As<br />

an ENGDIV Head of Department, the Commander Fleet<br />

Maintenance (CFM) is tasked with developing the professional<br />

skills of all people within FIMAs so that they are better<br />

able to serve in their next ship.<br />

A new and vital aspect of this long-term focus is MHQ’s relationship<br />

with the FEGs and Naval Systems Command<br />

(SYSCOM). As the capability managers and developers, the<br />

FEGs and associated Sustainment Maintenance Offices<br />

(SMOs - formerly CLOs) will seek MHQ advice on a broad<br />

range of engineering issues affecting our ability to fight, win<br />

and survive at sea. Similarly, engineering policy being processed<br />

by SYSCOM will often have important MHQ input.<br />

The variety of topics recently dealt with by MHQ spans from<br />

creating sustainable personnel structures, to creating the<br />

new RAN paint system, to a first hand inspection of STS<br />

YOUNG ENDEAVOUR’s rigging to assess safety equipment.<br />

An important aspect of MHQ’s cross FEG activities is to ensure<br />

that consistent and universal standards are maintained,<br />

thereby preventing the seven FEGs becoming seven<br />

separate navies.<br />

Life on Level 4 MHQ is always interesting. If a ship could<br />

have sorted it out, it would have done so before asking us.<br />

The PLAYERS<br />

MHQ <strong>Engineering</strong> Division<br />

CAPT PAUL Field (GLEN ME) presently heads the <strong>Engineering</strong><br />

Division, which includes the FMEO, FWEEO, FHEO, CFM<br />

(all FIMAs), Fleet Environment and OH&S Coordinating Officer,<br />

MOTU ME (Fleet Pneumatics, FFG Trainer, FCAU, Fleet<br />

Boiler Inspector, Fleet Diesel Inspectors), MOTU WE (DLG<br />

Stuff) and CQ Charge Boards, as CSO (E). Besides providing<br />

engineering advice to FEGs and COMFLOT, he is a promotion<br />

board member for LEUT to LCDR and is responsible<br />

for advising MC on submarine and aviation engineering<br />

matters. Calibration Ranging is done by FIST who is part of<br />

the Surface Combatant FEG. His recent jobs include a sabbatical<br />

with IBM during the 2000 Olympic Games and a stint<br />

as FMEO. He was a founding member of the Class Logistics<br />

Executive, which sponsored major changes within Naval<br />

Support Command.<br />

6


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

CSO (E)’s ‘upwards looking’ functions are to advise the MC<br />

on engineering issues by distilling the detail from his engineering<br />

heads of department, and to represent the Maritime<br />

Command’s interests in engineering matters. This<br />

requirement manifests itself in the three weekly briefs and<br />

presentations attended by all operational, engineering and<br />

logistic stakeholders within the Headquarters.<br />

‘Downward looking’ functions are to ensure that ENGDIV<br />

runs smoothly and that correct decisions are made at the<br />

appropriate levels. External to MHQ, the scope of the job is<br />

very wide, and includes all surface ships, submarines, aircraft<br />

and FIMA workshops. Primarily, CSO (E)’s concerns<br />

are to ensure that the MC’s assets can safely meet all of their<br />

required operational objectives. Daily signal traffic from<br />

ships describing URDEFs and Occupational Health and<br />

Safety (OH&S) incidents are the focus of this.<br />

Fleet Marine <strong>Engineering</strong><br />

FME is comprised of two main areas headed up by the Fleet<br />

Marine Engineer Officer (FMEO) CMDR Gavin Irwin. These<br />

components are the headquarters staff on level 4 MHQ, and<br />

the more diverse MOTU-ME component, which includes:<br />

• FFG PCS Trainer - provides training in the operation<br />

and maintenance of the FFG propulsion control system<br />

and centre of excellence for FFG propulsion systems<br />

• Fleet Condition Assessment Unit (FCAU) - lead navy<br />

unit for Vibration Analysis, Oil Analysis, and other<br />

machinery condition assessment tools<br />

• Fleet Pneumatic Specialists (FPS) - originally specialists<br />

in DDG combustion control pneumatics but now<br />

expanding to cater for the plethora of different pneumatic<br />

control systems in the Fleet<br />

• Fleet Diesel Inspector (FDI) team - new and growing<br />

team formed to raise the level of diesel expertise<br />

within the RAN. Trained on the USN Diesel Inspector<br />

course they will be used to assist ships with inspections,<br />

defect investigation and provide general<br />

diesel engine advice.<br />

The MHQ staff comprising FMEO, Deputy Fleet Marine <strong>Engineering</strong><br />

Officer (DFMEO), 4 x Fleet Marine <strong>Engineering</strong><br />

Assistant (FMEAs) Warrant Officers and the Fleet Boiler Inspector<br />

(FBI) are most frequently encountered by ships in<br />

their Sea Training Group role, wearing green overalls and<br />

carrying gas masks. Whilst these visible roles during Light-<br />

Off Examinations (LOEs), Work-Ups and Operational Readiness<br />

Examinations (OREs) form a large and important part<br />

of FME activity, they also have less public, but equally important<br />

jobs ashore. Such tasks include the daily oversight<br />

of URDEFs to facilitate appropriate responses, the audit of<br />

engineering practises against safety and operational standards<br />

and administration of the Marine <strong>Engineering</strong> Charge<br />

qualification programs. In addition provide engineering<br />

advice to the MC, CSO(E), FEGs and ships, as well as the critical<br />

tasks of representing Fleet <strong>Engineering</strong> concerns to<br />

SYSCOM and <strong>Navy</strong> Headquarters (NHQ), and the implementation<br />

of operational <strong>Engineering</strong> policy.<br />

This is just a brief snapshot of who we are and some of<br />

what we do. At the end of the day we exist to ensure that a<br />

ship’s <strong>Engineering</strong> department can safely and effectively<br />

operate and maintain their ships at sea so that the ship can<br />

fulfil its warfighting role.<br />

Fleet Hull <strong>Engineering</strong><br />

The present FHEO is CMDR Allan (GLEN ME). He has the<br />

honour of having his name on the shortest nameboard at<br />

MHQ due to previous incumbents averaging seven years in<br />

the job. This position was originally called the Fleet Shipwright,<br />

and was the domain of senior shipwright branch<br />

officers. The long tenure of the position (to retirement) gave<br />

an important thread of continuity within ENGDIV, but this<br />

traditional career approach has changed due to the gradual<br />

evolution in branch structure.<br />

The FHEO’s main job is to audit the condition of surface<br />

ship hulls to ensure that they remain certified for unlimited<br />

operations where ship design permits. Every Departmental<br />

Audit will see the FHEO and the Fleet Hull Engineer<br />

Assistant (FHEA) Warrant Officer examining the departmental<br />

administration as well as accessing the deepest<br />

darkest corners of bilges, fan flats, ballast and fuel tanks.<br />

For this reason, notice will be given as to which tanks are to<br />

be emptied and cleaned in advance of the inspection. These<br />

physical inspections assess paint deterioration, corrosion<br />

wastage and structural cracking.<br />

The FHEO also deals with a wide variety of other platforms<br />

systems, such as<br />

• Steering gear and stabilisers<br />

• Sewage processing plant<br />

• Marine pollution processing systems<br />

• Refrigeration<br />

• Air conditioning and ventilation<br />

• Nuclear, Biological & Chemical Defence (NBCD)<br />

equipment<br />

• Rigging and lifting equipment<br />

• Ships’ boats<br />

• Pressure vessels and hoses<br />

• Low and High Pressure air systems<br />

One big initiative being progressed is the introduction of<br />

low gloss, low solar absorbent paint into RAN service. The<br />

technical merits of this new polyurethane paint make it<br />

demonstratively better than the alkyd paints now being<br />

phased out, but these benefits will not be realised without<br />

7


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

addressing issues such as training and logistic support.<br />

Therefore, FHEO must liaise with other authorities to ensure<br />

that people are trained to properly prepare surfaces<br />

and apply two pack paints. The logistics end must ensure<br />

application data supplied to contractors is correct, and that<br />

the painting technology sailors are trained to use is readily<br />

available in ships. Otherwise, experience has shown that<br />

ships’ staffs will often feel compelled to make do and risk<br />

poor results for a short-term fix. The present MC is keen on<br />

making sure that RAN ships look good, so a well-monitored<br />

and controlled implementation strategy will help everyone<br />

meet his expectations.<br />

Another new area for FHEO, given the introduction of Defence<br />

Instruction - <strong>Navy</strong> (TECH) 47-3, is classification requirements<br />

for warships. This is in keeping with the<br />

requirement for the <strong>Navy</strong>, and Maritime Command in particular,<br />

to be an informed customer in the change process.<br />

Although SYSCOM and elements of the Defence Material<br />

Organisation (DMO) are driving the warship classification<br />

issue, it is important for ENGDIV to understand how this<br />

translates into better and more battle worthy ships.<br />

FHEA1 (WOMT Dickey Collinson) and FHEA2 (POMT PHIL<br />

Kelly) who have a formidable knowledge of the RAN’s platforms<br />

and hull administration ably assist the FHEO.<br />

Due to space constrained, more will be published on the<br />

FWEEO and CFM’s organisations in the next issue.<br />

About the Author<br />

Commander Allan has recently served as Acting Commander<br />

Fleet Maintenance and as the Platform System Support Manager<br />

within the Mine Warfare CLO. As MEO of HMAS HO-<br />

BART and Naval Representative during the refits of HMAS<br />

BRISBANE, PERTH and MANOORA, he has had extensive experience<br />

in machinery, hull and contracting issues.<br />

The less glamorous side of the job is its jurisdiction over<br />

sewage processing equipment, but fortunately, this is not a<br />

regular hand on commitment. Nevertheless, as potential<br />

killers, sewage systems have FHEO’s close attention.<br />

8


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

The Impending Extinction of the<br />

Naval Engineer?<br />

By LCDR Mark Warren, RAN<br />

To date the RAN has followed the lead of the RN in finding<br />

a place for engineers at sea. This has stood in contrast to<br />

the USN, which has preferred to send the maintainers and<br />

leave the engineers at home. With increasing sophistication<br />

of designs and the drive toward genuine minimum<br />

manned ships such as in DD-21, it will only be a matter of<br />

time before the RAN will have to give serious consideration<br />

to joining the USN. What bang for it’s buck will the RAN get<br />

for sending engineers to war?<br />

Reduced Benefit<br />

It is easy to fall into the misconception that the more technically<br />

sophisticated the machinery, the greater the need<br />

for technical training for the operators. Actually the reverse<br />

is usually true. In their infancy engineering designs are<br />

tenuous, temperamental, and simple. The engineer is required<br />

to make on site adjustments to the design or to work<br />

around bad design. However, as the design (and the design<br />

process) matures, the need & capacity for on board tinkering<br />

diminishes. The car is an obvious example of this trend.<br />

30 years ago, engineering nous could make a real difference<br />

to your motoring experience. Today it is almost a hindrance<br />

- just get in and drive. Likewise the user friendliness<br />

of computers is light years ahead of the early 1980s. In the<br />

Naval sphere, engineering in an early steam plant required<br />

constant attention to detail and consideration of the design.<br />

In contrast a gas turbine just runs itself. Today marine<br />

engineering input on<br />

board is limited to blade inspections,<br />

the analysis of<br />

which could really be done<br />

anywhere. Likewise the weapons<br />

world has moved long past<br />

the requirement for engineering<br />

decisions to be made at<br />

sea. At a recent Naval Engi-<br />

neering Symposium a senior WE officer acknowledged that<br />

he had not seen one significant engineering problem resolved<br />

on board. The time for that has passed.<br />

Cost Pressure<br />

In that environment, the push to reduce manning to reduce<br />

operational costs such as in the DD-21 project adds even<br />

more heat. To achieve a significant reduction in manning<br />

will require solutions outside the box. However it can’t be<br />

avoided that people are there to fight the ship, and so it can<br />

be expected that skill sets will be offloaded or amalgamated<br />

in accordance with how they contribute to that process.<br />

Trying to quantify that value is obviously a moot point in<br />

what can be parochial environment. Furthermore, the reality<br />

of having to operate a ship in peacetime cannot be<br />

ignored. Nevertheless engineering properly considered belongs<br />

more to the preparation phase of war than to the battle<br />

and so the naval engineer can expect to feel a significant<br />

component of the cost pressure.<br />

Cost Benefit Analysis<br />

On today’s practices, an engineer of a ship has been under<br />

training for 6 years (including university studies), and spent<br />

a further 6 years gaining the experience necessary to take<br />

up charge employment. As a seminal article this is not the<br />

place for a detailed cost analysis.<br />

However a ‘back of the envelope’<br />

type costing suggests<br />

that Defence invest $13M pa to<br />

train the engineers it will need<br />

in the future for charge appointments.<br />

1 On the basis that<br />

trained engineers are adding<br />

value, the cost of the six-year<br />

period of experience is the additional<br />

cost of employing<br />

1 This is calculated as follows (0.25*17*(130*4+60*2)+0.50*17*(65*4+60*2)+0.25*17*(25*4+60*2))*1.88 = $13M representing 34 charge engineers at sea for 2yr<br />

appointments (17), and the estimated cost of training via ADFA, RMIT, and Undergraduate Entry respectively iaw the proportion which each entry type<br />

was represented by charge engineers at sea in the year 2000. The factor 1.88 represents a 10% wastage rate in the 6 years after training.<br />

9


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

someone in uniform over civilian public servants and contractors,<br />

which is in the order of $3M pa. Consequently the<br />

total cost of providing professional engineer candidates for<br />

the charge positions at sea is in the<br />

order of $16M pa. What does the<br />

<strong>Navy</strong> get for its $16M apart from a<br />

wardroom wine caterer and a TV<br />

tuner?<br />

In discussing the benefits it is important<br />

to be clear on what a professional<br />

engineer is. As a head of<br />

department the engineer offers<br />

technical team management and<br />

leadership and engineering advice<br />

to the command. However while<br />

an engineer may perform these<br />

functions well, these are more military & managerial skills<br />

and could be performed by non- engineers. Engineers are<br />

not mechanics or technicians - they are not trained to operate<br />

or repair systems. And although closely related engineering<br />

is not strictly the same as logistics - the gathering<br />

of technical data and support to ensure the through life<br />

support. Engineers have something to offer and something<br />

to learn from such disciplines in the matrix of industrial<br />

operations. However professional engineers offer something<br />

different - they are targeted at the design process. This is<br />

reflected in the IEAUST website, which describes <strong>Engineering</strong><br />

as involving “the application of science and technical<br />

knowledge to create systems, services, products and materials”.<br />

This is not to suggest that engineering is restricted<br />

to the R&D departments of companies such as GE or<br />

Raytheon. The application of engineering skills is just as<br />

relevant to the maintenance and improvement aspects of<br />

the life cycle. On board ship the professional engineer provides<br />

analytical skills, technical specification of maintenance,<br />

and technical appraisal of improvements to design.<br />

How can the benefit of having such a person in the modern<br />

naval battle be quantified? When I met an engineer at a<br />

manufacturing plant that made water meters, he pointed<br />

out that his employment was subject to being able to show<br />

how much his technical input improved the financial performance<br />

of the company. The value adding was a relatively<br />

simple equation. In defence, quantifying the output<br />

is not so straightforward.<br />

However defence is still measured by dollars. There is not a<br />

bottomless pit of money. It is easy to slip into the consumer<br />

attitude of, “How can we spend the money so that we make<br />

sure we get as much if not more for ourselves next year.”<br />

But as professional engineers should take the producer attitude<br />

and ask, “How can we maximise our defence capability<br />

over time for each dollar that is spent.” It is certainly<br />

harder to quantify military capability than the life cycle cost<br />

of a water meter, but it can be done.<br />

One measure of capability relevant<br />

to Naval Engineers could be operational<br />

availability vs cost. At the<br />

2000 <strong>Engineering</strong> Symposium, the<br />

then CSO(E) presented data showing<br />

that the refit & repair budget<br />

had decreased by half over the last<br />

10 years. Not a bad return for $16M<br />

pa! But then how much of that<br />

drop can be attributed to Naval<br />

Engineers at sea, and how much to<br />

the engineering improvements on<br />

the ships we buy and the changing<br />

industrial environment of defence<br />

industry? It would be hard to quantify, but probably<br />

not much could be attributed to charge engineers (remember<br />

we are not talking about the number of engineers involved,<br />

but the fact that one of those engineers is the charge<br />

engineer of the ship).<br />

Another possible measure could be taken as the weighted<br />

percentage of mission critical repairs effected by engineering<br />

input. This is more obviously connected with the engineer<br />

being at sea. The professional engineer clearly adds a<br />

different perspective and analytical tool which, when combined<br />

with the tradesman/technician’s nous, significantly<br />

improves the problem solving capacity of the department.<br />

It is still common in the mechanical world at least for mission<br />

critical problems to be resolved with the professional<br />

engineer’s contribution. However, as noted above with increasing<br />

sophistication of design this has decreased over<br />

time.<br />

While the engineer does value add to life at sea, it is difficult<br />

to see how the profession can survive the next round<br />

of personnel cost-cutting, unless figures are produced that<br />

point to a significant impact which is not apparent at first<br />

look. Not that this suggests the <strong>Navy</strong> doesn’t need engineers.<br />

As noted above, engineers bring science to life, and<br />

the modern battlefield is at least in part a battle of engineering<br />

superiority. Rather the question is should the <strong>Navy</strong><br />

send them to war? Of course not many captains would<br />

knock back one if one were on offer. But taking the bigger<br />

picture, what’s the best way to spend the limited defence<br />

budget.<br />

A Different World<br />

One world that has already had to face this question is the<br />

aeronautical world. Of course they’ve had to face it right<br />

from the start for space and weight reasons, but although<br />

10


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

the reason they minimise the personnel present is different,<br />

they have shown what is possible. For instance a FA-18<br />

Hornet has as much platform and weapons sophistication<br />

as an FFG with about 0.5% of the personnel present! The<br />

pilot is trained to understand the engineering operating<br />

parameters to ensure the correct ‘on watch’ operation of<br />

the equipment. Of course the hover time and threat engagement<br />

of a Hornet is no where near what a FFG can<br />

provide, and the total personnel numbers of the Air Force<br />

and the <strong>Navy</strong> aren’t in the end that different, but such an<br />

observation raises the stakes on what is possible.<br />

With all the technical controls that are available today, why<br />

are there more than two people on watch at cruising stations<br />

- an OOW and a PWO? Like the pilot in the aircraft<br />

the OOW should be able to monitor platform performance<br />

and position at the same time; while the PWO can keep an<br />

eye on Communications and Sensors and make the brews<br />

(yes I am serious - not a sailor or an engineer in sight). It is<br />

possible - every aircraft does it every day in a far more complicated<br />

operating environment (being 3D instead of 2D and<br />

at speeds 20x as fast).<br />

The <strong>Navy</strong> could devolve all the administrative functions to<br />

the FEGs (when was the last time a pay clerk went flying?).<br />

It would be a significant break with tradition for the Captain<br />

to be ten-tenths the warrior and not a mini provincial<br />

governor, but as Air Forces have shown, you’d be amazed<br />

at what you can achieve when you have to. The personnel<br />

constraints of DD-21 are designed to prompt just such radical<br />

thoughts. If the <strong>Navy</strong> had the same personnel constraints<br />

as the Air Force (albeit for different reasons), a<br />

Frigate would probably be run with about 20 people.<br />

Back to Reality<br />

But the <strong>Navy</strong> is not the Airforce. The Air Force delivers small<br />

loads quickly, while the <strong>Navy</strong> delivers large loads slowly,<br />

with the added benefit of being<br />

able to remain on station for extended<br />

periods. To fully exploit the<br />

military capacity of a surface vessel,<br />

there needs to be sufficient<br />

crew to operate the ship for extended<br />

periods and to carry out<br />

preventative maintenance for that<br />

period (call these personnel the<br />

operators). Furthermore the crew<br />

can carry out corrective maintenance<br />

and repair battle damage<br />

(call these personnel the fixers).<br />

While the number of operators can<br />

be discussed against fairly predictable parameters, the<br />

number of fixers required is akin to the question, “How long<br />

is a piece of string?” The more expertise and equipment<br />

are placed on board, the greater the chance the damage/<br />

failure can be overcome. To quantify how many fixers are<br />

required, one must first answer the question what sort of<br />

damage/failure should a ship be able to recover from?<br />

Where is the point of diminishing returns in cost of fixers<br />

vs recoverability of platform? And not only in the case of<br />

the damaged / failed system, but across the whole of fleet.<br />

If all the ‘fixers’ were taken away and the money saved used<br />

to buy more platforms (standfast cynics), with modern reliability<br />

would there be more or less operational ship hours?<br />

If that were combined with an aeronautical style view of<br />

operator manning, again would there be more or less operational<br />

ship hours?<br />

Possible Way Ahead<br />

As has been noted above, there are a lot of unanswered<br />

questions which makes postulating answers fairly speculative.<br />

However if the principles espoused above are valid<br />

then a modern navy could migrate toward the following<br />

formula (as new ships were ordered).<br />

The ships crew is restricted to operators.<br />

Officers: 4 OOWs + Nav, 4 PWOs + Capt, all cross trained to<br />

a low level in engineering and logistics.<br />

Sailors: 9 MT (6AB, 2LH, 1PO) for OLM, 9 combined ET/CSO<br />

operator / maintainers.<br />

• All administrative and disciplinary responsibilities<br />

are devolved ashore.<br />

• Meals are provided through less reliance on cooked<br />

food and training the crew in basic preparation skills,<br />

with a paid a meal allowance for when alongside.<br />

• Through ILS planning, stores accounting and issuing<br />

is largely coordinated ashore with maintenance<br />

staff taking responsibility for handling<br />

and accounting on board.<br />

• Factoring in a 20% bunk allowance<br />

for trainees this would lead<br />

to a frigate crew of 34, not including<br />

flight crew.<br />

The responsibilities devolved<br />

ashore would be transferred to the<br />

FEG, which would maintain a<br />

deployable (uniformed) and base<br />

(civilian) staff. The deployable staff<br />

would be available to meet ships<br />

in foreign ports where there was no<br />

permanent RANLO, and deal with any issues (administrative<br />

or logistic).<br />

11


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

Hull Form:<br />

Propulsion:<br />

Endurance:<br />

Wave Piercing Cat SWATH<br />

Gas - Electric<br />

30000nm @ 40knts, 15000nm @ 60knts<br />

Weapons & Sensors: 4x Modular slots for VL Standard<br />

2/3, Evolved Sea Sparrow, 155mm AGS, Land Attack<br />

Rockets. 2x Anti-Sub / Anti-Surface Helicopters, 2x<br />

UAV surveillance & Air Interceptor. 3D Electronic<br />

Search, Track and Illuminate Radar. ESM &ECM. TAS.<br />

About the Author<br />

After completing initial training through CRESWELL and<br />

UNSW (1983-86), LCDR Warren served in ADELAIDE, DAR-<br />

WIN and briefly on HOBART before working as a Project Planner<br />

at what was then Garden Island Dockyard (sharing a<br />

caravan on the Cruiser Wharf with Stan Sheldon!), culminating<br />

in managing BRISBANE’s ID at FORGACS dockyard.<br />

Warren stayed on for the transition of GID to ADI, and after<br />

managing the first commercial contract for ADI, led an engineering<br />

project team investigating the cost effectiveness of<br />

modernising the DDG platform systems. Transferring to the<br />

reserves in 1991, he served in the Ready Reserve, predominantly<br />

as HEO and then DMEO in SUCCESS. In 2000 Warren<br />

took up a CFTS contract to become DNOP SOE for 12 mths,<br />

and is currently in the MHC Project as the In Service Support<br />

Manager.<br />

Where is the professional engineer in this? As noted above,<br />

the presence of an engineer on board does add value to the<br />

fault finding and decision making process, but it is highly<br />

questionable as to whether the benefit gained warrants the<br />

cost of having 6 engineers (at various stages of development)<br />

on every surface combatant. Perhaps following the<br />

OOW stage, officers could choose to specialise in engineering<br />

(or any of the other current specialists skills that survive)<br />

and undertake appropriate tertiary study before<br />

returning to the deployable cell of the FEG. The current<br />

practice of training suitable sailors could continue, with<br />

qualified POs bypassing the OOW stage. Obviously not<br />

being there on site when an incident occurs is a significant<br />

deficiency, but when the figures are added up, it may well<br />

be that this still delivers more ‘bang for your buck’.<br />

Conclusion<br />

Engineers may have done themselves out of a job. Through<br />

more mature design and improved reliability and control,<br />

the cost-benefit equation may have tipped them off the ship<br />

and out of the battle space. In reality this has been possible<br />

for the last two decades, but it has taken time for economics<br />

to squeeze the naval world in the same way that physics<br />

put pressure on the aeronautical world from day one.<br />

Detailed analysis would have to be done to resolve this issue,<br />

some of which will fall to the engineers to carry out.<br />

Will we have the courage to do it, or will we be pushed off?<br />

Footnote by the Editor<br />

I must reiterate that LCDR Warren’s article in no way represents official <strong>Navy</strong> thinking nor policy but it is a view to which detractors may respond and enforces<br />

why we do need Engineers at sea.<br />

12


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

Electric Propulsion for Surface<br />

Combatants<br />

By Mr. Peter CLARK<br />

The USN and RN have both stated that their next generation<br />

of surface warships will have electric propulsion and<br />

are working towards that aim with research and development<br />

contracts in place for prototype electric propulsion<br />

motors and lightweight, high speed generators. Apart from<br />

certain technical advantages over current propulsion systems<br />

they state that total through life ship cost will be less<br />

and are using this to promote the electric ship program.<br />

In traditional frigate operation there are at least two generators<br />

on line (for redundancy) and one or two main engines<br />

running when under way, a total of at least three prime<br />

movers in operation. Integrated Full Electric Propulsion<br />

(IFEP) aims to reduce both the total number of prime movers<br />

and the number of machines running at any one time<br />

with consequent maintenance and fuel savings. The intention<br />

is that any generator will be able to supply both propulsion<br />

and ship service loads, possibly with redundancy<br />

being provided by a backup battery or other stored energy<br />

device. This will ensure more favourable electrical loading<br />

by eliminating lightly loaded machines running in parallel<br />

and by having the most appropriate sized generator for the<br />

load running.<br />

Other perceived benefits of electric propulsion are the elimination<br />

of main gearboxes and controllable pitch propellers<br />

(CPPs), and the possibility of the ship’s entire generating<br />

plant being available to supply the power requirement of<br />

future directed energy weapons systems. A possible side<br />

benefit, were a battery to be adopted, could be the ability<br />

to shut down engines and run on the battery to minimise<br />

IR signature when missiles are anticipated.<br />

Disadvantages are the complexity and the extra weight of<br />

generators, cabling, switchgear and electric motors over a<br />

simple mechanical transmission, although some of this<br />

extra weight will be recouped in the elimination of gearboxes,<br />

fewer prime movers and shorter shafting lines. There<br />

is hope that the future will bring much lighter motors by<br />

utilising permanent magnet or superconducting technology<br />

and lightweight power electronics for the switchgear<br />

to reduce the weight disadvantage of IFEP.<br />

This article discusses the present situation<br />

of electric propulsion in the RAN,<br />

developments in IFEP currently to<br />

hand in the RN and USN, some related<br />

technologies and their near term prospects.<br />

The <strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Navy</strong> Type 23<br />

Frigate<br />

The most notable example of electric propulsion currently<br />

in service in a surface combatant is the <strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Navy</strong> Type 23<br />

Frigate.<br />

The RN departed from its usual Combined Gas Turbine or<br />

Gas Turbine (COGOG) arrangements in the Type 21, 22 and<br />

42 frigates and destroyers with a Combined Diesel Electric<br />

and Gas Turbine (CODLAG) system in the Type 23 Frigate.<br />

The RN COGOG system uses two gas turbines per shaft, a<br />

small one (a Spey or a Tyne) for cruising or a large one (an<br />

Olympus) for sprinting. On the Type 23 there is a 1.5 MW<br />

direct current electric motor and an 18 MW gas turbine on<br />

each shaft. The class was designed for Anti Submarine Warfare<br />

and towed array operations and is said to be very quiet<br />

when running on electric drive. The electric motors are in<br />

the shaft lines providing direct drive and reversing capabilities,<br />

and thereby avoiding any gear noise when electric<br />

drive is in use. The electric motors may also be used while<br />

the turbines are driving the shafts. Diesel generators supply<br />

the power for the electric motor and ship’s services. This<br />

class has proved extremely economical when cruising in<br />

diesel electric mode and has been held up as justification<br />

for full electric propulsion. The Type 23 has a range of 7800<br />

nautical miles compared to the RAN FFGs of similar size<br />

and displacement, which have a range of 4500 nautical<br />

miles on equivalent gas turbines alone. (The type 23 does<br />

have a slower cruise speed, 15 knots compared to 18 knots<br />

for the FFG.) It could be said that this economy is due to the<br />

use of diesel engines, rather than gas turbines or steam<br />

plant, and could also be obtained with a simple mechanical<br />

CODOG or CODAG system. However, the need for controllable<br />

pitch propellers is avoided by the use of auxiliary<br />

electric propulsion, as is the need to run propulsion diesel<br />

13


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

engines at very low powers, which can affect the life and<br />

maintenance costs of these units.<br />

units, each connected to port and starboard sides of the<br />

ring main and able to supply all essential equipment.<br />

The <strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Navy</strong> IFEP Program<br />

The RN is keenly pursuing IFEP along with complex cycle<br />

gas turbines and Minimum Generator Operation (MGO) for<br />

application to various types of warship. Their vision for the<br />

Future Escort is a twin propeller vessel with a 20 MW permanent<br />

magnet motor directly on each<br />

shaft supplied from any combination of<br />

two 21 MW, one 7 MW and one 1.25 MW<br />

complex cycle gas turbine alternators<br />

(GTAs). The two 21 MW GTAs would enable<br />

a speed of about 30 knots while the<br />

7 MW GTA would run the ship at up to<br />

half speed. The 1.25 MW GTA would provide<br />

harbour and emergency power. Additionally<br />

MGO would be enabled by a<br />

“ride through” capability being provided<br />

by what is basically a submarine battery.<br />

The battery would allow a speed of 12<br />

knots with all systems fully functional for<br />

30 minutes. Battery weight is not considered<br />

an issue as it will be positioned low in the ship and<br />

could replace ballast that would otherwise be necessary. A<br />

side benefit of this backup battery would be the ability to<br />

switch off the gas turbines to minimise IR signature when<br />

inbound missiles are anticipated.<br />

This computer-generated image shows the<br />

general characteristics of the <strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Navy</strong>’s<br />

Type 45 Destroyer. [Image from BAE Systems.]<br />

In line with the elimination of gearboxes, fluid couplings<br />

and CPPs, the RN also sees diesel engines as being high<br />

maintenance, unreliable machines and is keen to replace<br />

them with gas turbines. (This is probably due to their experience<br />

of diesel engines being limited to those manufactured<br />

within the UK. The RAN has had experience with<br />

diesel engines from many nations and found some to be<br />

quite reliable. IFEP will work just as well<br />

with diesel engines, or even with fuel<br />

cells, in place of gas turbines).<br />

The RN states that industry is developing<br />

the power electronics necessary for<br />

smaller and lighter controllers and considers<br />

that they will be available in time.<br />

Development work being pursued by<br />

the RN in conjunction with partners is<br />

the development of complex cycle<br />

cruise and harbour duty gas turbines<br />

and permanent magnet propulsion motors.<br />

The RN also sees the replacement of stored energy systems<br />

such as hydraulics and pneumatics by electrical systems<br />

as desirable due to improved reliability and practicality due<br />

to the stored energy available in the battery needed for<br />

MGO.<br />

The Future Carrier (CVF) would have two motors (similar<br />

to those of the Escort) per shaft and an increased power<br />

generator plant while the Future Attack Submarine (FASM)<br />

would also utilise some of the same electrical componentry.<br />

The carrier is one of the applications where the flexibility<br />

of electric propulsion can be exploited through the location<br />

of the propulsion gas turbines in the island superstructure.<br />

The Invincible class (CVS) in particular suffered from<br />

the loss of hangar space due to the intake and uptake<br />

ducting associated with the four Olympus gas turbines.<br />

Although the CVF is expected to be a larger vessel the space<br />

saving of Electric propulsion will allow a larger Carrier Air<br />

group for a given displacement.<br />

It is intended that the propulsion motors and large generators<br />

be a high voltage AC system and the ship services be<br />

on a medium voltage DC ring main. These two systems are<br />

interfaced by rectifier / inverter units enabling one system<br />

to supply the other. For example when a WR-21 is running,<br />

high voltage AC is supplied directly to the propulsion motors<br />

and DC to the ship services via the rectifiers. If the running<br />

machine fails then the battery will supply the DC ring<br />

main directly and the propulsion via the inverters. Additional<br />

redundancy is provided by having ship services arranged<br />

in zones; within each zone are two power supply<br />

The demise of Common New Generation Frigate (CNGF) was<br />

the latest in a long line of abortive efforts to replace the<br />

RN’s ageing Type 42 AAW destroyers and their GWS 30 Sea<br />

Dart area defence missile system. The proposed Type 43<br />

and Type 44 destroyer designs fell by the wayside by the<br />

early 1980s. The UK pulled out of the eight-nation NFR-90<br />

program in 1989 as a result of a perceived misalignment<br />

between the platform and weapon system; and the national<br />

Future Frigate program of the early 1990s was quickly subsumed<br />

into the Anglo-French Future Frigate program. This<br />

eventually became, with Italy joining in, the CNGF, also<br />

known as project Horizon.<br />

Following the demise of Project Horizon as the vehicle for<br />

the future escort, the UK <strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Navy</strong> is defining the requirements<br />

for a new anti-air warfare warship to replace its ageing<br />

Type 42 destroyers.<br />

As a national project, the likelihood of IFEP being adopted<br />

in the Type 45 is much greater, given the obvious satisfaction<br />

with the current Type 23 ships. The short timescale<br />

resulting from the delays due to the earlier projects will<br />

encourage the use of existing designs and concepts, includ-<br />

14


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

ing IFEP. However, the need to place the ships in service may<br />

see the adoption of less advanced electrical technology than<br />

planned for in the IFEP program, and that proposed by the<br />

USN. Alstom’s most recent multi pole, fifteen phase AC<br />

motor appears more likely to be adopted than permanent<br />

magnet technology.<br />

Current USN Plans for the<br />

DD21<br />

The US <strong>Navy</strong> (USN) plans to introduce the<br />

first of 32 Zumwalt-class (DD 21) destroyers<br />

into service in Fiscal Year 2011 (FY11).<br />

The vessels, with a projected life of at least<br />

35 years, will replace Oliver Hazard Perryclass<br />

(FFG 7) frigates and Spruance-class<br />

(DD 963) destroyers. The design will also<br />

act as the basis for the CG 21 ‘air-dominance’<br />

cruiser, development of which will<br />

start in the next decade, that is intended<br />

to replace the Ticonderoga-class (CG 47)<br />

Aegis guided-missile cruiser.<br />

The DD 21 will employ electric drive, using<br />

an integrated power system (IPS). The<br />

commercial marine industry has already<br />

adopted such an approach for applications such as cruise<br />

liners, where it is known as the ‘Power Station’ concept. Until<br />

recently, the USN had ruled out the use of DC motor electric<br />

propulsion for combatants because of its inherent design<br />

limitations, which were generally agreed to be an<br />

output power of 5-6MW at 150-250rpm propeller speed.<br />

These ratings are well below the 15-20MW per shaft required<br />

by a typical surface warship. Another drawback was<br />

that, before about 1990, there were no AC variable-speed<br />

drives of adequate power and reliability that could be used<br />

as an alternative to DC drives.<br />

The US <strong>Navy</strong>’s proposed DD21 is a<br />

much more radical design than the<br />

Type 45 and this may be reflected in<br />

its propulsion technology.<br />

[Image from the DD21 “Blue Team”.]<br />

The use of DC power is an important part of this concept,<br />

for several reasons. The use of multiple sources provides<br />

uninterrupted power to user loads without the need for<br />

phase matching. This design approach also effectively separates<br />

propulsion power from ship’s service power. Naval user<br />

loads require power to a high standard, which cannot be<br />

provided directly from the propulsion bus. Other methods<br />

of providing this quality of separation were examined, but<br />

were found to be less desirable than DC distribution. They<br />

included the use of motor-generator sets, split distribution<br />

buses and filtering. Additional benefits stem from the fact<br />

that inverting DC to the appropriate frequency near the user<br />

loads limits the effects of electrical system disturbances,<br />

and eliminates the need for electromechanical switchgear.<br />

The two industry consortia competing to build DD-21—one<br />

led by Bath Iron Works of Maine, the other by Ingalls Shipbuilding<br />

of Mississippi—have both been striving to develop<br />

designs for IPS and electric drive for the new ship.<br />

The USN has placed heavy emphasis on reducing costs in<br />

terms of both acquisition and operations and support. Many<br />

of the savings will come from reductions in manning, since<br />

personnel historically account for about 60% of a ship’s lifecycle<br />

cost. The DD 21 is planned to have a crew of 95, including<br />

the helicopter detachment, compared with<br />

approximately 320 for the DDG 51. Additional berthing accommodation<br />

is also required for temporarily<br />

assigned personnel, such as an<br />

embarked commander and staff, together<br />

with special operations forces.<br />

The US <strong>Navy</strong> plans called for a choice between<br />

the two DD21 teams in April 2001.<br />

The selected DD 21 lead contractor will select<br />

the various constituents of the IPS on<br />

the basis of the technology available at the<br />

time. Candidates include power electronic<br />

building blocks, permanent-magnet motors,<br />

pulsed power systems, fuel cells, energy<br />

storage devices, and podded<br />

propulsion.<br />

The USN has investigated the Azipod, a commercial<br />

azimuthing propulsor. ABB, Kvaerner Masa-Yards and<br />

Fincantieri formed ABB Azipod Oy, a new company that<br />

will manage the business activities of the Azipod electric<br />

propulsion system. Under the agreement, ABB Industry will<br />

own 55 percent of the company, and Kvaerner and<br />

Fincantieri will each own 22.5 percent. ABB Azipod Oy commenced<br />

its activities in a new manufacturing facility in<br />

Helsinki, Finland.<br />

This type of podded propulsor has been investigated by the<br />

U.S.<strong>Navy</strong> for application to future vessels in the destroyer<br />

category. The Project Executive Officer of the DD21 project,<br />

as well as other USN representatives visited ABB Azipod and<br />

Kvaerner Masa Shipyards of Helsinki, Finland, in June 1998.<br />

The design, manufacture, and installation procedures of<br />

Azipod were discussed at length together with the associated<br />

hydrodynamic attributes leading to substantial gains<br />

in ship propulsive efficiency, turning-circle diameter, and<br />

crash-stop distance. The post-construction installation procedure<br />

of the Azipod was explained at the Kvaerner Masa<br />

Shipyards, where 14MW units were being installed on a<br />

twin-screw cruise ship.<br />

15


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

Complex Cycle Gas Turbines<br />

The RN’s IFEP program, and to a lesser degree the USN’s IPS<br />

program, hinges on the development of complex cycle gas<br />

turbines, as they theoretically offer much greater fuel efficiency,<br />

especially at part loads, than do simple cycle machines<br />

and they promise similar fuel economy to a diesel.<br />

Other advantages are lighter weight than equivalent diesel<br />

engines and better atmospheric emissions without the need<br />

for secondary exhaust gas treatment, which could become<br />

a requirement for diesel engines in the future, particularly<br />

in Europe.<br />

The WR-21<br />

In December 1991 the USN awarded a design and development<br />

contract to a Westinghouse led team for an<br />

intercooled and recuperated gas turbine. The team members<br />

were: Westinghouse - prime contractor and system<br />

integrator; Rolls Royce - gas turbine design and development;<br />

AlliedSignal - recuperator and intercooler; and CAE<br />

Electronics - controls. The engine is intended as a replacement<br />

for the current simple cycle GE LM 2500 and as such<br />

has the same footprint although it is taller, as the recuperator<br />

sits on top of the engine, and it is considerably heavier.<br />

A US / UK Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was<br />

signed in 1994 and a US / French MOU in 1995 to defray the<br />

developmental costs and obtain a wider market for the engine.<br />

Westinghouse’s defence interests were taken over by<br />

Northrop Grumman about 1995/6. Currently the engine is<br />

believed to be running successfully with further work being<br />

carried out on the recuperator design before production<br />

commences. Fuel consumption savings are so far not<br />

as high as expected.<br />

Significant fuel savings are claimed for the WR-21 compared<br />

to the LM 2500, but the LM2500 fuel consumption figures<br />

used in the comparison are higher than those claimed by<br />

General Electric themselves for the LM2500. While the WR-<br />

21 fuel consumption figures are claimed to be equal to a<br />

diesel, they are higher than many modern diesels, and still<br />

rise significantly at lower powers, not unlike the LM2500.<br />

Below 10% power, a saving of 57% against the LM2500 is<br />

claimed, but the actual specific fuel consumption figure is<br />

still three times that of a diesel at a similar power.<br />

The weight of the WR-21 in its enclosure is twice that of an<br />

LM2500, although the space occupied is similar, since the<br />

recuperator occupies what would be uptake space in a simple<br />

cycle turbine. A WR-21 would result in significant fuel<br />

savings, but with a penalty in weight and complexity. The<br />

weight penalty is lower than that incurred by additional<br />

diesel cruise engines, but the weight of auxiliary electric<br />

motors as used on the <strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Navy</strong> Type 23 would be in the<br />

same order of magnitude. This use of auxiliary electric drive<br />

in conjunction with an LM2500 may provide similar fuel<br />

savings without the additional complexity of the WR-21.<br />

GE’s past success in propelling USN Destroyers and Frigates<br />

would seem to suggest that the WR-21 is unlikely to be the<br />

only gas turbine selected for the DD-21 and its successors,<br />

regardless of its improved fuel economy. At least some of<br />

these vessels are likely to have the LM2500 or some derivative<br />

as main propulsion gas turbines.<br />

The <strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Australian</strong> <strong>Navy</strong><br />

The RAN has had quite successful experience of electric<br />

propulsion in non-combatant surface ships dating back to<br />

the Second World War. The Fleet Tugs SPRIGHTLY and RE-<br />

SERVE were obtained from a group built for the Admiralty<br />

under Lend Lease arrangements but these were similar to<br />

many contemporary USN vessels. This was the first use of<br />

electric propulsion in the RAN surface fleet and utilised<br />

General Motor’s diesels developed for locomotive use. The<br />

better known application was the survey ship MORESBY,<br />

which had three English Electric 16CSVM diesel engines<br />

driving two DC propulsion motors from the same manufacturer.<br />

Again, the equipment was developed from contemporary<br />

railway locomotive practice. The success and<br />

long life of MORESBY, in clear contrast to her conventionally<br />

powered half-sister COOK, influenced the selection of<br />

electric propulsion for the current hydrographic ships.<br />

Submarines<br />

The RAN has operated Oberon and Collins class diesel electric<br />

submarines. These submarines could be said to have<br />

an IFEP system as both the boat’s services and propulsion<br />

are supplied from the same batteries. However there is a<br />

difference in that the diesel generators recharge the batteries<br />

when the boats are on the surface or at schnorkel<br />

depth and never supply the load directly, unlike the proposed<br />

surface ship IFEP systems where the battery is used<br />

for backup only.<br />

Two 440-volt DC batteries with a large, twin armature, direct-drive<br />

DC motor on each propeller shaft supply the<br />

Oberon propulsion system. Variable speed is achieved by<br />

different groupings of batteries and armatures to give different<br />

speed ranges and within each range by varying the<br />

motors’ field current.<br />

Collins has two 440-volt DC batteries and a single twin armature,<br />

direct-drive DC motor weighing 87 tonnes. It has<br />

different groupings of batteries and armatures to achieve<br />

different speed ranges. To achieve its lowest speed range it<br />

uses some solid state electronics, namely a chopper to reduce<br />

the voltage to the motor.<br />

16


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

In the tendering process for the new submarine project the<br />

German consortium offered a Siemens permanent magnet<br />

motor which at 46 tonnes was nearly half the weight of<br />

Collins’s conventional DC motor. This was new technology<br />

and would have offered a lead in to the more powerful<br />

motors needed for surface ships had the tender been successful.<br />

Hydrographic Ship<br />

The recently built Hydrographic<br />

Ships have electric propulsion and<br />

use commercial off the shelf<br />

(COTS) technology. There are two<br />

propeller shafts each with a 1200-<br />

rpm GEC Alsthom 1000 kW AC induction<br />

propulsion motor driving<br />

through a reduction gearbox. The<br />

two variable speed power supplies<br />

are 12 pulse diode series Pulse<br />

Width Modulated voltage source<br />

inverter through IGBT with 700 Hz<br />

fixed chopping frequency. There<br />

are four main diesel generator sets<br />

of 800 kW each; one 350 kW harbour generator set; one<br />

160 kW emergency generator set; three ship service transformers;<br />

two propulsion transformers; one main switchboard;<br />

one ship service switchboard; and one emergency /<br />

harbour switchboard. As well as the propulsion motors there<br />

is a 380 kW bow thruster with its variable speed drive, and<br />

four harmonic filters to isolate propulsion and bow thruster<br />

harmonics from the ship’s services. The relatively low power<br />

and relatively poor acoustic signature of the system, due<br />

to the geared drive, makes it unsuitable for an ASW frigate<br />

but it is an IFEP system.<br />

Lessons from History<br />

It now seems appropriate to consider some historical examples<br />

of electrically propelled major warships, and to look<br />

for any lessons learned. The US <strong>Navy</strong> has long been a supporter<br />

of electric drive for surface warships.<br />

The former collier Jupiter was converted to become the<br />

small aircraft carrier Langley (CV-1) which entered service<br />

in 1922. Two proposed battle cruisers survived the Washington<br />

treaty to be completed as the (nominally) 33,000 ton<br />

aircraft carriers Lexington (CV-2) and Saratoga (CV-3) in<br />

1927. They had four 3-phase 40,000 kVA 6250 volt turbogenerators<br />

driving eight 16,000 kW propulsion motors, two<br />

per shaft, for a top speed of 34 knots. It appears that all<br />

these early systems were variable frequency (without complex<br />

power electronics!) The speed of the steam turbine and<br />

thus the frequency of the directly coupled generator was<br />

varied, to give good speed control of the motors and ship.<br />

The USS Lexington was the USN’s second Aircraft Carrier<br />

and was one of the most powerful electrically powered<br />

ships in the world for its time. [Photo - US <strong>Navy</strong>.]<br />

(The frequency range included 60Hz, and the Lexington was<br />

used to supplement the city power supply in Bremerton<br />

during a drought when hydroelectric power was unavailable.)<br />

The Lexington and Saratoga played an important part in<br />

the Second World War, and both suffered considerable battle<br />

damage from bombs and torpedoes. While the electric<br />

propulsion allowed good subdivision of the hull and aided<br />

damage control, the high voltages required for the high<br />

power resulted in a hazard not<br />

present in a conventional ship.<br />

The Lexington was lost on 8 May<br />

1942 during the battle of the Coral<br />

Sea, after being hit by two bombs<br />

and two air launched torpedoes.<br />

One torpedo hit forward, adjacent<br />

to the aviation gasoline (avgas)<br />

tanks. Although these tanks were<br />

protected by water ballast tanks<br />

outboard, the shock ruptured the<br />

bulkhead seams and allowed<br />

avgas vapour to escape. This eventually seeped into the forward<br />

motor generator room, where 3125 volts was reduced<br />

to 110 volts for domestic services and lighting, resulting in a<br />

series of explosions and fires that effectively destroyed the<br />

ship. It must be admitted that the avgas was the problem,<br />

and it could easily have been ignited by other than an electrical<br />

source in a different vessel.<br />

The somewhat luckier Saratoga was hit by a submarine<br />

launched torpedo on 31 August 1942, and the shock was<br />

such that a “shockproof” normally open breaker momentarily<br />

closed. This short-circuited the two operating (of four)<br />

main turbo alternators, resulting in an electrical explosion<br />

causing the protective breakers to operate and resulted in<br />

a complete loss of propulsive power. While power was<br />

quickly restored, the damage and carbon tracking caused<br />

by the previous explosion caused two more explosions in<br />

the high-tension circuitry as efforts were made to get under<br />

way. The ship was taken in tow for three hours while<br />

repairs were carried out. The ship did not return to normal<br />

propulsion conditions until 4 September, although the hull<br />

damage caused by the torpedo resulted only in the flooding<br />

of one boiler room (of sixteen) and the partial flooding<br />

of another.<br />

It should not be forgotten that the high voltages and currents<br />

required for electric propulsion pose an additional<br />

hazard over that of normal ship electrical distribution, particularly<br />

after battle damage, and this can pose an additional<br />

risk for inflammable fuels and chemicals.<br />

17


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

A Comparison of New and<br />

Current Technology Propulsion<br />

Motors<br />

In the article, some of the technologies expected to assist in<br />

reducing the weight involved in electric propulsion have<br />

been discussed. To indicate the magnitude of the weight<br />

savings, the following example is provided. At present, it<br />

seems likely that the current generation of technology will<br />

be used in the RN Type 45, and possibly also in the USN<br />

DD21.<br />

The large size of the Alstom conventional<br />

technology 19 MW propulsion<br />

motor is reflected in its weight of 117<br />

tonnes. [Photo from Alstom.]<br />

A 19 MW Destroyer Propulsion Motor<br />

Current AC Permanent High Temperature<br />

Variable Frequency Magnet Superconductor<br />

Rating 19 MW at 150 rpm 19 MW at 100rpm 19 MW at 100 rpm<br />

Outside Diameter 4.5 m x 4.0 m 4.2 m 2.3 m<br />

Axial Length 4.8 m 1.2 m 1.0m<br />

Motor Weight 117 tonnes 50 tonnes 19 tonnes<br />

Design Alstom Kaman American<br />

Electromagnetic<br />

Superconductor<br />

Only the Alstom motor has been built, as part of the US<br />

<strong>Navy</strong> Electric Propulsion Full-Scale Development program.<br />

Kaman has built smaller motors for marine propulsion, up<br />

to 3000 hp (2240 kW) at 300 rpm. American Superconductor<br />

are currently constructing experimental motors of 200<br />

hp and 1000 hp.<br />

(Data from Papers presented at Naval Symposium on Electric<br />

Machines, Annapolis Maryland October 26-29 1998)<br />

About the Author<br />

Peter Clark works for the Directorate of Naval Platform<br />

Systems within <strong>Navy</strong> Systems Branch, and is the Project<br />

Liaison Officer for Amphibious and Afloat Support<br />

Projects. He has previously worked with Naval Aviation<br />

<strong>Engineering</strong>, the RAAF Tactical Fighter Project and the<br />

Guided Missile Frigate Project.<br />

The General Atomics permanent magnet motor promises a smaller<br />

and lighter motor, but requires additional cooling equipment for<br />

the superconducting elements. No full size motor has yet been built.<br />

[Photo - General Atomics.]<br />

18


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

A schematic diagram of the proposed Type 45 IFEP propulsion solution - Alstom<br />

19


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

Managing <strong>Engineering</strong> & Supply<br />

Categories<br />

By Warrant Officer Bruce Tunnah<br />

As the RAN reshapes for the new century with the introduction<br />

of new platforms and material capability, along with<br />

resized personnel ceiling, <strong>Navy</strong> is presented with a significantly<br />

altered environment for workforce management.<br />

Additionally, the day to day issues involved in the management<br />

of categories require sound specialist knowledge,<br />

which is both platform and equipment specific.<br />

The Directorate of Naval Professional Requirements (<strong>Engineering</strong><br />

and Logistics) (DNPR (E&L)), headed by CAPT Craig<br />

Kerr, are the <strong>Engineering</strong> and Supply Category Sponsors and<br />

they make policy to manage the category size, and capabilities.<br />

These requirements are entered into the total Naval<br />

Workforce Plan and form the basis for the management<br />

of our people’s careers.<br />

The Role of the Category<br />

Sponsor<br />

The role of the category sponsor is wide-ranging. A primary<br />

role is to liaise with all elements of the navy workforce<br />

pipeline, acting as a ‘system manager’; tuning the pipeline<br />

to achieve the Naval Workforce Plan outcomes in the most<br />

successful manner possible. Further, category sponsors<br />

identify potential problem areas, analysis and develop plans<br />

to resolve them.<br />

In order to fulfil their role, the category sponsors must maintain<br />

currency with the Fleet and the issues effecting our<br />

people. They also use data from a variety of sources to assist<br />

in identifying problem areas and support the development<br />

of Workforce planning to provide data on total<br />

numbers. This enables the Directorate of Sailors Career<br />

Management (DSCM) and Directorate of Naval Officers’<br />

Posting (DNOP) to undertake the day to day management<br />

according to category sponsor guidelines.<br />

What Does all this Mean to<br />

Me?<br />

For Technical and Supply personnel, DNPR (E&L) is your<br />

voice in Canberra, and your adviser regarding category<br />

sponsorship issues. DNPR (E&L) is also involved in:<br />

• Pay cases to go before the DFRT,<br />

• Competency Standards in consultation with the relevant<br />

training authorities,<br />

• Civil accreditation,<br />

• Career progression profiles,<br />

• Changes to the Category Structure, and<br />

• Providing direction to the posters on category specific<br />

posting issues. Etc<br />

Taking into account all of the above, Category Sponsors are<br />

your ‘one stop shop’ when it comes to confirming any policy<br />

issues related to technical & supply categories. If you have<br />

a question on the application of the policy talk to DSCM or<br />

DNOP first. If you are still unhappy or have some good ideas,<br />

call DNPR’s personnel line-up.<br />

Any questions regarding Technical and Supply category<br />

sponsorship in the RAN can be directed to the DNPR(E&L)<br />

personnel below:<br />

Marine <strong>Engineering</strong><br />

ADNPR (ME) (ME Category Sponsor)<br />

CMDR Andy HAMILTON 6266 4793 CP4-7-122<br />

Andy.Hamilton@cbr.defence.gov.au<br />

SO Marine Technical<br />

CPOMT Danny Chouffot 6266 4211 CP4-7-130<br />

Danny.Chouffot@cbr.defence.gov.au<br />

SO Marine Technical 2<br />

CPOMT Gary LEISFIELD 6266 4071 CP4-7-131<br />

Gary.Leisfield@cbr.defence.gov.au<br />

Weapons <strong>Engineering</strong><br />

ADNPR (WE) (WE Category Sponsor)<br />

CMDR Richard JONES 6266 3048 CP4-7-123<br />

Richard.Jones@cbr.defence.gov.au<br />

SO Electronic Technical<br />

CPOET Antenor GORDON-COOKE 6266 2704 CP4-7-133<br />

Antenor.Gordon-Cooke@cbr.defence.gov.au<br />

20


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

SO Electronic Technical<br />

WOET Jacqui BRYANT 6266 3489 CP4-7-134<br />

Jaqui.Bryant@cbr.defence.gov.au<br />

Aviation <strong>Engineering</strong><br />

ADNPR(AE) (AE Category Sponsor)<br />

CMDR Darryl VARCOE 6266 2097 CP4-7-124<br />

Darryl.Varcoe@cbr.defence.gov.au<br />

SO Aviation Technical<br />

WOAT Bruce TUNNAH 6266 4584 CP4-7-136<br />

Bruce.Tunnah@cbr.defence.gov.au<br />

SO Aviation Technical<br />

POATV Robert MILLER 6266 2570 CP4-7-137<br />

Robert.Miller@cbr.defence.gov.au<br />

<strong>Engineering</strong> Employment and Training<br />

ADNPR (<strong>Engineering</strong> Employment and Training)<br />

LCDR Clyde WHEATLAND 6266 3495 CP4-7-139<br />

Clyde.Wheatland@cbr.defence.gov.au<br />

SO <strong>Engineering</strong> Employment and Training<br />

Mr Rob ALLARD 6266 4110 CP1-4-B2<br />

Rob.Allard@cbr.defence.gov.au<br />

Supply<br />

ADNPR(SU) (SU Category Sponsor)<br />

CMDR Paul KINGHORNE 6266 4159 CP4-7-093<br />

Paul.Kinghorne@cbr.defence.gov.au<br />

SO ILS Policy<br />

LCDR Rory MCCARTNEY 6266 3281 CP4-7-128<br />

Rory.McCarthy@cbr.defence.gov.au<br />

SOTP (Transition Planning)<br />

LEUT Nathan ROBB 6266 4154 CP4-7-129<br />

Nathan.Robb@cbr.defence.gov.au<br />

SOSS (Ship Support)<br />

LEUT Stephanie CANNON 6266 3281 CP4-7-104<br />

SO Professional Development (SU PQ Sponsor)<br />

LCDR Graham FALLS 6266 4196 CP4-7-102<br />

Graham.Falls@cbr.defence.gov.au<br />

A/SO Afloat Support (SN Category Sponsor)<br />

WOSN Allan THOMAS 6266 2500 CP4-7-100<br />

Allan.Thomas@cbr.defence.gov.au<br />

A/SO Ship Support (STD Category Sponsor)<br />

WOSTD Carl ANDERSON 6266 4157 CP4-7-103<br />

Carl.Anderson@cbr.defence.gov.au<br />

A/SO Transition Planning (CK Category Sponsor)<br />

WOCK William MATTHEWS 6266 63064 CP4-7-127<br />

William.Matthews@cbr.defence.gov.au<br />

(WTR Category Sponsor)<br />

CPOWTR Kim VAN-WETERING 6266 3586 CP4-5-175<br />

Kim.Van-Wetering@cbr.defence.gov.au<br />

SOAS (SO Afloat Support)<br />

LCDR Christian BRETMAISSER 6266 2483 CP4-7-105<br />

Christian.Bretmaisser@cbr.defence.gov.au<br />

21


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

FIMA Sydney Circuit Card Assembly—Test<br />

and Repair Facility<br />

By LEUT Kirsten DAVIS, RAN<br />

What is the CCA-TRF?<br />

Test Equipment<br />

The Fleet Intermediate Maintenance Activity - Sydney<br />

(FIMA-S) is responsible to Commander Fleet Maintenance<br />

(CFM) for providing intermediate maintenance assistance<br />

for rectification of defects beyond the normal capacity or<br />

capabilities of ships’ staff.<br />

Within FIMA-S is the Circuit Card Assembly Test and Repair<br />

Facility (CCA-TRF), commonly referred to as the ‘FIMA<br />

PCB Lab’. It is the primary facility for Intermediate Level<br />

test and repair of Circuit Card Assemblies (CCAs).<br />

Capabilities of the CCA-TRF<br />

Last year, the FIMA CCA-TRF received approximately 200<br />

analogue and digital Circuit Card Assemblies (CCAs) for testing<br />

and repair. Most of these CCAs came from the Logistics<br />

Support Organisation (LSA), directly off ships (on a Maintenance<br />

Control Record (TM200) basis) and from system trainers<br />

on Garden Island. Recently, the lab has also undertaken<br />

an Ordnance Alteration (ORDALTS) and Report of Defective<br />

Material or Design (TM179) action for the LSA and Mobile<br />

Operational Technical Unit (MOTU).<br />

Located on Level 3 in Building 79 at Fleet Base East, the<br />

CCA-TRF also operates as a ‘drop in’ centre offering troubleshooting<br />

assistance for urgent repair work for ships<br />

alongside.<br />

There are over 1400 Test Program Sets (TPSs) that support<br />

CCAs from numerous systems including Mk-92 Fire Control<br />

System, Mark 15 Close-In<br />

Weapon System (CIWS), SPS-49 Radar<br />

and Peripheral Control Systems.<br />

The CCA-TRF uses these test programs<br />

to diagnose and pinpoint the<br />

location of possible components that<br />

may be causing the CCA to fail.<br />

Two types of automatic test stations are currently used by<br />

the CCA-TRF to functionally test the CCAs. These are the<br />

M3-ATS and the Genrad 2225. Both these stations run test<br />

programs that determine whether or not a CCA is serviceable.<br />

If the CCA is non-serviceable a list of possible faulty<br />

components is generated which are then tested individually<br />

to isolate the faulty components.<br />

The M3 Automatic Test Station is a freestanding unit that<br />

contains a suite of VXI and GPIB instruments. All TPSs for<br />

the M3-ATS are developed in TestBasic and are used to control<br />

the instruments to exercise the CCA with predetermined<br />

stimuli and then compare the measured response against<br />

the expected response.<br />

The RAN’s main method of in circuit testing is the GenRad<br />

2225. The Genrad 2225 is a digital circuit tested with limited<br />

analogue capability. It was first introduced in to the<br />

RAN in the early 1980s and has proved to be a reliable and<br />

effective test station. TPSs that run on this station can isolate<br />

to individual component level.<br />

FIMA Sydney CCA-TRF is the also only designated <strong>Australian</strong><br />

Defence Force repair agent for the Genrad. The USN no<br />

longer supports the Genrad or by Genrad Inc. and as the<br />

predominant user of the Genrad, the RAN provides user<br />

training and maintenance, repair and calibration actions on<br />

the Genrad for both the RAAF and the Army.<br />

Following fault detection on an automatic test station, diagnostic<br />

tools are used to further isolate the faulty component.<br />

The RAN’s most commonly<br />

used diagnostic tools are the<br />

Huntron range of instruments including<br />

the Huntron 5100DS. The<br />

5100DS interfaces with a computer,<br />

where the signature of a component<br />

being tested is compared with<br />

a signature stored in a computer<br />

database. These stored signatures<br />

are part of a signature set for the<br />

entire CCA, which is known as a<br />

22


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

RAN Gold Disk. RAN Gold Disks are developed by the CCA-<br />

TRF and contractors.<br />

If a RAN Gold Disk has not been developed for the CCA then<br />

the technician may use the Huntron Tracker 2000. The<br />

Tracker 2000 works on the same principle as the 5200DS<br />

but does not interface with a computer. Instead, technicians<br />

compare suspect components on a faulty CCA with those<br />

on a known serviceable CCA. Either way, both instruments<br />

are powerful fault finding tools.<br />

Repair<br />

When a faulty component has been isolated a technician<br />

replaces it. All technicians working at the CCA-TRF gain<br />

their qualifications from HMAS Albatross, Nowra and repair<br />

to the ANSI IPC A 610, J-STD-001 Standard. Once a component<br />

has been replaced, the CCA is functionally tested<br />

and if serviceable, it can be repackaged and sent back to<br />

the customer. In addition to repairing faulty CCAs the CCA-<br />

TRF are also capable of repairing damaged Printed Circuit<br />

Boards (PCBs), from through hole repair to track replacement.<br />

The Pie chart represents the percentage of CCCAS received<br />

that were repaired and other percentage of CCAs that were<br />

found to be serviceable after initial testing. The high percentage<br />

of ‘No Fault Found’ CCAs which would ordinarily<br />

be sent to commercial contractors for repair indicates the<br />

significant cost benefits the CCA-TRF provides.<br />

Maintenance and Retrieval<br />

Data<br />

All CCAs received by the CCA-TRF for repair are added to a<br />

database known as SupportTrack. SupportTrack was specifically<br />

designed for the CCA-TRF and keeps a detailed<br />

history of all CCAs that pass through the establishment. It<br />

tracks inventory and CCA repair, places automatic orders<br />

and lists all TPSs. SupportTrack can also present vital statistics<br />

about the CCA-TRFs performance; from the number<br />

of CCAs repaired to the number of CCAs from each customer.<br />

The FIMA Sydney CCA-TRF website provides greater visibility<br />

to the support organisation of the capability of the<br />

laboratory and access to repair specifications and standards.<br />

The web site is accessed through the Centre for Maritime<br />

<strong>Engineering</strong> website at http://defweb.cbr.<br />

defence.gov.au/navycme/fimaccatrf/home.htm.<br />

Daily operation of the FIMA CCA-TRF is overseen by POET<br />

Adam Smith (Ph: 02 9359 3670) with ATE and TPS acquisition<br />

and support managed by LEUT Kirsten Davis of CME.<br />

About the Author<br />

Lieutenant Kirsten Davis joined the <strong>Navy</strong> in 1995 as a WE<br />

officer through the Undergraduate Scholarship program. I<br />

completed my degree at the end of 1997 and then commenced<br />

initial entry at HMAS CRESWELL and application course at<br />

HMAS CERBERUS.I received my WECC in September 1999,<br />

having completed my AWEEO time. I then posted to the Centre<br />

for Maritime <strong>Engineering</strong> (formally MMES) as the Weapon<br />

Systems Engineer where I was responsible for support of Automatic<br />

Test Equipment for the RAN Surface Fleet. In April<br />

2001, I posted to HMAS TOBRUK where I am currently the<br />

Deputy <strong>Engineering</strong> Officer.<br />

23


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

ADF Aerospace <strong>Engineering</strong><br />

Professional Development<br />

By CMDR Darryl Varcoe, RAN (Assistant Director <strong>Navy</strong> Professional Requirements - Aviation <strong>Engineering</strong>)<br />

On 18 Oct 00, the Chiefs Of Staff Committee endorsed recommendations<br />

from the Senior Review Team report on improvements<br />

to the ADF Aviation capability. An endorsed<br />

recommendation was “Air Force’s <strong>Engineering</strong><br />

Sustainability Project be widened to an ADF Aerospace <strong>Engineering</strong><br />

Sustainability Project”. A subsequent project was<br />

initiated by Chief of Air Force to develop and implement<br />

long-term strategies for improved retention of Air Force’s<br />

Aerospace Engineers. The three key areas were:<br />

• Remuneration<br />

• Career Management, and<br />

• Professional Development which is designed to allow<br />

Aerospace Engineers to remain abreast of current<br />

aviation technology and further develop their<br />

technology management expertise, particularly with<br />

the continuing introduction of state-of-the art<br />

weapon systems.<br />

As part of the project, Air Force also identified four key initiatives<br />

for professional development of its Aerospace Engineers:<br />

• Dedicated full-time civil schooling<br />

• Short courses<br />

• Seminars<br />

• Professional recognition.<br />

A short course that contributes towards a Masters Degree<br />

is being developed by ADFA and an agreement has been<br />

signed with IEAust for a Graduate Development Program<br />

(GDP). Through completion of the Competency Based Assessment<br />

system administered by IEAust, tertiary qualified<br />

engineers can gain accreditation as Chartered Professional<br />

Engineers (CPEng) and registration on the National Professional<br />

Engineers Register (NPER). Non-tertiary qualified Engineers<br />

(AD(T) or equivalent) can gain accreditation as<br />

Chartered <strong>Engineering</strong> Officers (CengO).<br />

As all ADF Aerospace Engineers<br />

perform equivalent<br />

functions and require<br />

continuing professional<br />

development to remain<br />

current with aerospace<br />

technology and management<br />

skills, it was proposed<br />

that the three services adopt equivalent initiatives to<br />

ensure equity differences do not spread further between<br />

Air Force and the smaller categories within <strong>Navy</strong> and Army.<br />

CN has endorsed a similar program for <strong>Navy</strong> to that being<br />

conducted by the RAAF for the development of Aerospace<br />

Engineers. This initiative aligns with strategies identified<br />

for <strong>Navy</strong> Key Result Area 10: Learning organisation, by cultivating<br />

the intellectual capital of its Aerospace Engineers.<br />

The precedence set by this initiative may cause a flow-on<br />

to ME and WE stream Officers. Negotiations between<br />

DNPR(E&L) and IEAust will commence on 1 Jun 01 for participation<br />

in a similar program for MEO and WEEOs.<br />

This education is suited to ensuring that <strong>Navy</strong> continues to<br />

be an ‘informed customer’ with access to the latest technological<br />

advances. Directorate of Naval Personnel Requirements<br />

(<strong>Engineering</strong> & Logistic) will be responsible for<br />

defining detailed professional development requirements,<br />

coordinating the program and liaising with Air Force whilst<br />

DGNPT will be responsible for management of officers<br />

through full-time schooling. POC for DNPR (E&L) on this<br />

matter is CMDR Darryl Varcoe on (02) 62662097 or e-mail<br />

darryl.varcoe@cbr.defence.gov.au<br />

24


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

Professional Engineers in the<br />

<strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Australian</strong> <strong>Navy</strong><br />

By LEUT Robert Elphick, RAN<br />

If, as a graduate of a four-year engineering degree, I was<br />

employed in a civilian engineering practice, in many instances<br />

I would be encouraged, during the years following<br />

graduation, to be part of a program which would develop<br />

and extend the foundations of engineering knowledge laid<br />

at university 1 . This is not the case in the RAN. While there is<br />

a program for the Continual Professional Development<br />

(CPD) of engineers it is pitched at an intellectual level far<br />

below university engineering and could not be said to extend<br />

or develop the foundations of engineering knowledge<br />

laid at university. And where knowledge is not put into practice<br />

and developed, it is often lost.<br />

My purpose in contributing this article to the Naval <strong>Engineering</strong><br />

Bulletin is to provoke discussion on the training progression<br />

of the professional engineers 2 in the RAN. Since all<br />

training should be aimed at developing an officer for future<br />

employment, out of this may flow discussion on the<br />

role of the Naval Engineer and the training required to build<br />

this type of person.<br />

My thinking in this matter was stimulated through an article<br />

published by IEAust on the topic of professional practice<br />

3 . The article discussed the terms Cosmopolitan and<br />

Local with respect to one’s profession and used these terms<br />

to describe a professional person’s disposition regarding his<br />

career. A person valuing themselves (for want of a better<br />

expression) primarily in relationship to his immediate work<br />

place and organisation is described as having a strong local<br />

disposition. A person with a highly cosmopolitan disposition<br />

sees himself primarily in relationship to his profession.<br />

Most junior naval engineers posted to sea going vessels will<br />

very soon develop a strong local disposition. This is not surprising<br />

given that they are required to work in a close team<br />

with other officers, the large majority of whom are not engineers.<br />

The highly operational focus of a sea-going billet,<br />

together with the many collateral tasks (divisional and<br />

whole ship) is not at all conducive to the consolidation and<br />

extension of the foundations laid during the engineering<br />

degree. Consequently in this environment a junior officer<br />

will operate (and see themselves) more as a member of the<br />

Profession of Arms and develop more as a Naval Officer than<br />

they will as an Engineer.<br />

The situation is somewhat similar when the young engineer<br />

is then posted to a shore establishment in that loyalty<br />

to, and teamwork with, officers of different specialisations<br />

remain central tenets of the work. However, a shore job<br />

generally has a lesser operational focus and this factor, combined<br />

with the opportunity to work in an area with a larger<br />

percentage of engineers, increases the scope for a greater<br />

focus on purely engineering matters. While this allows an<br />

engineer to hold a slightly more cosmopolitan disposition<br />

than what he or she would hold at sea, the complexity of<br />

engineering practiced is still well below, or at least of a vastly<br />

different type, to what they will have studied at university.<br />

Even ashore there is no consolidation or extension of the<br />

skills gained at university.<br />

Have we decided that many of the specialised skills gained<br />

during university are not required of RAN engineers? If so,<br />

should there be a greater emphasis on management skills<br />

in the engineering degrees offered at the <strong>Australian</strong> Defence<br />

Force Academy? Should units be introduced at the Defence<br />

Force Academy, which deal with “operations engineers”<br />

related competencies (eg. configuration management,<br />

maintenance management, terotechnology, quality management,<br />

technical administration, and methods of performance<br />

analysis, environmental issues)? Could we better<br />

employ our young engineers? By not employing and developing<br />

their university learnt skills, are we contributing<br />

to retention problems?<br />

1 The end result of this program may be gaining status as a Certified Professional Engineer (CPEng) under the auspices of the Institution of Engineers,<br />

Australia (IEAust).<br />

2 A Professional Engineer, according to IEAust, is a graduate of a four-year engineering degree from a recognised university.<br />

3 Key Competencies in <strong>Engineering</strong> Practice Part A Chapter 1 p12 by Prof B. Lloydd, IEAust, 1999<br />

25


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

I am in no doubt that the experience I have gained during<br />

my sea postings as a WE officer has developed my understanding<br />

of engineering practice. However, I have difficulty<br />

articulating exactly how this engineering relates to the<br />

majority of what I studied at university. Furthermore, I<br />

would have to admit that a lot of what I studied at university,<br />

because it has not been consolidated during the intervening<br />

years, is very faint.<br />

About the Author<br />

Lieutenant Robert Elphick BE (Elec) Hons. graduated from<br />

the <strong>Australian</strong> Defence Force Academy in 1994 and completed<br />

his WECC on HMAS Brisbane in 1996. He served as a Systems<br />

Engineer Officer in HMAS HOBART and is currently DWEO<br />

of HMAS BRISBANE. His shore postings have included CDSC<br />

and the Tactical Development and Analysis Group (TDAG),<br />

MHQ.<br />

I understand there is discussion in progress to determine<br />

how the cumulative experiences of a WE Officer on gaining<br />

their CQ may make him or her eligible to apply for recognition<br />

as a Certified Professional Engineer with IEAust. I<br />

think such an arrangement would greatly improve the vision<br />

of young naval engineers. In many cases the extra<br />

study required to be eligible for to gain CPEng would be<br />

accepted as a challenge.<br />

What do you think?<br />

Editor’s Note: Refer to article by CMDR Varcoe (page 24).<br />

26


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

DNOP NEWS<br />

By LCDR Michael SIMPSON, RAN<br />

Enhancement of DNOP<br />

Engineers Career Management<br />

Section<br />

One outcome of the PERSAT and CN’s Leadership conference<br />

last year was that an additional position has been created<br />

at DNOP for management of junior <strong>Engineering</strong> Officer<br />

careers. This enhancement is aimed at providing a better<br />

service to officers by reducing the number of personnel<br />

managed by each position.<br />

After being gapped for some time the new position has been<br />

filled and from 23 April 2001 the cell was re-organised as<br />

follows:<br />

• DNOP Staff Officer <strong>Engineering</strong> 1 (SOE1, LCDR Mike<br />

Simpson) is responsible for career management of<br />

all <strong>Engineering</strong> Officers of LCDR Rank and all LEUTs<br />

possessing an <strong>Engineering</strong> Charge Qualification.<br />

• DNOP Staff Officer <strong>Engineering</strong> 2 (SOE 2, LEUT<br />

Andrew Payne) is responsible for all other <strong>Engineering</strong><br />

Officers.<br />

• <strong>Engineering</strong> officers who are still studying or as yet<br />

have not commenced the appropriate application<br />

course will continue to be managed by Staff Officer<br />

Undergraduates until commencement of that<br />

course.<br />

Introduction of the New Performance Appraisal System<br />

Defence has been developing a new tri-service performance<br />

appraisal system for sailors and officers since 1998. The introduction<br />

of the new system means that everyone in the<br />

ADF will participate in the one scheme rather than having<br />

a number of different systems that can cause confusion<br />

when people from other services are involved in the appraisal<br />

process.<br />

operates through Web Forms and has been developed to<br />

interface directly with Defence’s new Human Resources<br />

system, PMKEYS. For those who don’t have access to Web<br />

Forms, such as those on board ship, it will be available<br />

through your local area network rather than through Web<br />

Forms. The forms can be used as hard copy versions where<br />

they are not available electronically.<br />

In many respects the new system is not that different from<br />

the PERS1 and PR5 systems. It is designed to assess your<br />

performance and potential and will be used by DNOP and<br />

DSCM for posting, promotion and development purposes.<br />

What it does do is formalise a number of processes that<br />

were under utilised by <strong>Navy</strong>. At the start of a new performance<br />

cycle, you will be required to complete a Preliminary<br />

Review of Performance, which provides the opportunity for<br />

you and your assessor (supervisor, HOD or CO) to set goals<br />

for the forthcoming year. About half way through the performance<br />

cycle, you will have the opportunity to review<br />

your performance with your supervisor and receive feedback<br />

on the goals you have set. At the end of the cycle, you<br />

will be assessed on your overall performance throughout<br />

the reporting period, just as you have been in the past. However,<br />

now you will have an improved method of seeking<br />

changes to your annual or bi-annual assessment if you are<br />

not satisfied with it through an enhanced representation<br />

process.<br />

A number of signals have been issued regarding the <strong>Navy</strong><br />

specific policy and the transition from PERS1s and PR5s to<br />

the new system. These signals and further information on<br />

the new system are available on the DNOP and DSCM Web<br />

Sites (http://defweb.cbr.defence.gov.au/dpedscm and<br />

http://defweb.cbr.defence.gov.au/dpednop) or by contacting<br />

in DNOP, CMDR Pam Price (pam.price@cbr.<br />

defence.gov.au) and in DSCM, LCDR Tony Franklin<br />

(anthony.franklin@cbr.defence.gov.au)<br />

The new system will be available for all <strong>Navy</strong> personnel from<br />

April this year. It has been developed to improve the way<br />

we assess performance in the ADF. It makes use of the most<br />

up to date technology available and has been designed with<br />

future improvements in mind. The appraisal instrument<br />

27


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

Revised Officers Selective<br />

Promotion System<br />

Introduction<br />

The current Officers Selective Promotion System has been<br />

operating for a number of years and has been supported<br />

PR 5 performance appraisal system and personnel data<br />

provided through NPEMS. The introduction of the ADF Officers<br />

Performance Appraisal System (AOPAS) and PMKEYS<br />

in 2001 has provided the impetus for <strong>Navy</strong> to review the promotion<br />

system. In doing so CN has directed DNOP to undertake<br />

a full review of the promotion system with a view<br />

to fitting it into a more holistic career management continuum.<br />

During 2000 a review was undertaken. Input received from<br />

the officer community showed a common perception that<br />

the current system unduly relies on Promotion Board members<br />

knowledge of individuals and Board members taking<br />

on an advocacy role for those for whom they have Section<br />

6 responsibility.<br />

The review team developed proposals for a revised promotion<br />

system, which were cleared by CNSAC in December<br />

2000. Detailed development of the various components of<br />

the system is currently underway and <strong>Navy</strong> will complete<br />

transition to the new system in December 2002.<br />

Key Components of the<br />

System<br />

There are seven key components of the Revised Officers’<br />

Selective Promotion System:<br />

• The development of published Selection Criteria<br />

upon which to base promotion decisions.<br />

• Qualification Based Boards (QBB) which replace<br />

Command based mini-boards.<br />

• A Career Advancement Board (CAB) which not only<br />

considers promotion but can also address other career<br />

development issues.<br />

• The opportunity for individuals<br />

to have input to the QBB<br />

and CAB.<br />

• More meaningful feedback on<br />

career development issues, not<br />

just promotion prospects,<br />

which is the current case.<br />

• Introduction of a Positive Career<br />

Management (PCM) system<br />

for selected officers.<br />

• One promotion seniority date.<br />

DNOP <strong>Engineering</strong> Staff Officers, LEUT Andrew<br />

Payne and LCDR Michael Simpson<br />

It is within these components that development work continues<br />

prior to publication of the detailed policy in ABR 6289<br />

in the latter part of 2001/early 2002. The following paragraphs<br />

provide a brief explanation of the key components<br />

of the system as they currently stand.<br />

Selection Criteria<br />

A requirement of the new system is that it be more objective<br />

and transparent. This is partially achieved by having<br />

enduring selection criteria that are known by the officer<br />

community and form the basis of promotion decisions. The<br />

selection criteria are yet to be fully developed and agreed<br />

by CNSAC. They will vary across the ranks and PQs however,<br />

for the purposes of equity and assessments across a<br />

PQ they will be kept as comparative as possible. It is probable<br />

that a weighting process will be applied to the selection<br />

criteria and this too will need to vary across the ranks.<br />

Proposed selection criteria endorsed by CNSAC in late 2000<br />

for further development were PQ Experience and Currency,<br />

Current Performance, Past Performance, Education and<br />

Qualifications, Command and Charge Experience, Breadth<br />

of Experience and Future Potential. While these criteria are<br />

fairly generic the expectations within each and the weighting<br />

would vary with rank and PQ.<br />

Qualification Based Boards (QBB)<br />

QBBs are PQ based boards that will assess all officers of a<br />

particular rank and PQ against the selection criteria. The<br />

prime task of the QBBs will be to produce an order of merit<br />

that the CAB will use to guide them in making personnel<br />

management decisions, including promotion decisions and<br />

development recommendations (. A database will be used<br />

to record the assessments, apply weightings and produce<br />

an order of merit. Benefits of the QBB process is that the<br />

members have detailed knowledge of PQ requirements and<br />

can equally represent all officers under consideration. In<br />

addition to producing an order of merit for the CAB the QBB<br />

can make other career development recommendations to<br />

the CAB and DNOP. The QBB will not be privy to promotion<br />

vacancy information when creating its order of merit. QBB<br />

members will normally be two ranks above those officers<br />

they are assessing, of at least CAPT rank and cannot also<br />

be a member of the CAB. The proposed<br />

QBB structure and composition<br />

is attached below.<br />

Career Advancement<br />

Board (CAB)<br />

There will be one CAB that meets to<br />

consider each rank. The CAB will<br />

comprise all, or a subset of, <strong>Australian</strong><br />

based RADMs and the Systems<br />

Commander. They have the best<br />

knowledge of <strong>Navy</strong>’s corporate re-<br />

28


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

quirements and will be provided with promotion vacancy<br />

data. The CAB will not only make promotion recommendations<br />

to CN. They will also consider other career management<br />

issues such as PCM, extension of appointments<br />

and MIER and can make specific career development recommendations<br />

to DNOP.<br />

Individual Input<br />

It has been recognised that a number of officers want to<br />

have some input to the promotion system. This will probably<br />

increase following the introduction of AOPAS and the<br />

demise of Section 6 officers. It has been decided that this is<br />

best achieved by providing officers the opportunity to provide<br />

a written submission that will be included in the information<br />

provided to the QBB and CAB. The submission will<br />

need to be kept brief due to the volume of information provided<br />

to the Boards and to enable electronic presentation.<br />

About one page is envisaged.<br />

Inputs will be voluntary and the content an individual’s<br />

decision. It is envisaged that issues such as why an officer<br />

has not yet met PQ requirements or why an officer was<br />

required to remain in a posting for a protracted period would<br />

be the kind of information provided.<br />

Feedback<br />

The review confirmed that Promotion Board feedback is<br />

an emotive subject in the officer community. Having considered<br />

the many issues involved, <strong>Navy</strong> has decided to continue<br />

with feedback but will make it broader and more<br />

meaningful. In addition to information on the individual’s<br />

relative promotion competitiveness additional information<br />

may be provided on why an officer was not selected and<br />

how they may improve their competitiveness. Career development<br />

advice may also be provided. The CAB will be<br />

responsible for feedback content.<br />

Single Promotion Seniority Date<br />

The introduction of a single seniority date for promotion to<br />

LCDR occurred in 1997 with the introduction of the now<br />

defunct Phased Batch Promotion system and annual Promotion<br />

Boards. The Jun 01 Promotion Board will be the last<br />

time that two 6 monthly lists of CMDR and CAPT promotions<br />

will occur. Officers selected for promotion from Dec<br />

02 on will all have a substantive seniority date of 1 Jan twelve<br />

months hence. Annual December promotion lists with 12<br />

months notice of promotion fits better with the majority of<br />

postings occurring at the end of the year, the yearlong ACSC<br />

and the Command and Charge programs and also provides<br />

increased posting stability. Temporary promotion would<br />

continue to be used for officers who are already in, or posted<br />

to a billet at the higher rank prior to the substantive date.<br />

Revised Promotion System Timeline<br />

The new system will be fully operational for the first time<br />

in 2003. The timetable of events will be:<br />

• 01 Jan 03 Officers selected for promotion at Jun 02<br />

transitional Promotion Board are substantively promoted.<br />

• 30 Jun 03 Promotion reports due.<br />

• Aug/Sep 03 QBBs meet.<br />

• Oct/Nov 03 CAB meets.<br />

• Dec 03 Promotion List announced for substantive<br />

seniority date of 01 Jan 05.<br />

Further information regarding the revised promotion system<br />

is available on the DNOP web page http://<br />

defweb.cbr.defence.gov.au/dpednop. The Project Officer is<br />

CMDR Brian Cowden who can be contacted at<br />

Brian.Cowden@cbr.defence.gov.au or on 02 6265 2004.<br />

Positive Career Management (PCM)<br />

To complement CDF’s policy on senior officer development<br />

and succession planning CN has decided to introduce a PCM<br />

system. PCM involves the identification and career development<br />

of officers who display the most potential for progressing<br />

to Flag rank. The QBBs and CAB will be responsible<br />

for identifying PCM candidates and recommending special<br />

career development requirements. It will then become the<br />

individual and DNOP’s responsibility to develop and implement<br />

a suitable career plan. In general a PCM career plan<br />

will involve accelerated PQ progression in conjunction with<br />

opportunities for Command, higher education, key staff<br />

postings and staff college attendance. As participation in<br />

the program will be demanding it will be voluntary and<br />

regularly reviewed.<br />

29


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

Officers’ Promotions<br />

Incumbent Rank Name Seniority Establishment<br />

LEUT GL AE TADICH, J K 05-Jul-00 DMO<br />

T/LCDR GL ME AE Q CAPPER, C L 13-Nov-00 HS 817 SQDN<br />

T/LCDR GL WE Q MILLS, S J 07-Dec-00 DMO<br />

LEUT GL WE DAVIDSON, C B 01-Jan-01 DMO<br />

LEUT GL WE WING, G A 01-Jan-01 DMO<br />

LEUT GL WE STRACK, G L 01-Jan-01 MARITIME COMMAND<br />

LEUT GL WE SEKULITCH, M P 01-Jan-01 SYSCOM - C4ISREW<br />

LEUT GL WE GODWIN, J W 01-Jan-01 SC FEG<br />

LEUT GL WE DRUMMOND, S I 01-Jan-01 SYSCOM - C4ISREW<br />

P/LEUT GL (ME) CASLICK, R D 01-Jan-01 SYDNEY<br />

LEUT GL WE DALKIN, E L 01-Jan-01 SHEEAN<br />

LEUT GL WE CHUNG, G T 01-Jan-01 DIO<br />

LEUT GL WE BROWN, D G 01-Jan-01 DMO<br />

LEUT GL AE SOAMES, N C 01-Jan-01 NTC-NEW<br />

LEUT GL AE DAWES, A R 01-Jan-01 HC 723 SQDN<br />

P/LEUT GL (ME) LOIZOU, R A N 01-Jan-01 MANOORA<br />

LEUT GL WEA LARSEN, G A 01-Jan-01 RAAF<br />

LEUT GL WE GEORGE, B D 01-Jan-01 DMO<br />

LCDR GL WE Q ELLIOTT, R M 01-Jan-01 NEWCASTLE<br />

P/LEUT GL (ME) AUSTIN, R J 01-Jan-01 ANZAC<br />

LCDR GL EOE WE Q CLARK, A R 01-Jan-01 SYSCOM<br />

LCDR GL MTH ANDERSON, P D 01-Jan-01 DMO<br />

LCDR GL ET ZEITLHOFER, R A 01-Jan-01 SYSCOM<br />

LCDR GL WE SM Q STRANGWARD, D T 01-Jan-01 DMO<br />

LCDR GL MTH YOUNG, A J 01-Jan-01 DMO<br />

LCDR GL WE DOVER, C 01-Jan-01 DMO<br />

LCDR GL IT AE Q LOCKEY, S J 01-Jan-01 JOINT ED/TRAIN<br />

LCDR GL WE VEHLOW, D R 01-Jan-01 ADELAIDE<br />

LCDR GL IT ME Q DAY, G W 01-Jan-01 NEWCASTLE<br />

LCDR GL WE Q HEARD, V A 01-Jan-01 NTC<br />

LCDR GL WE Q LAXTON, G A 01-Jan-01 MARITIME COMMAND<br />

LCDR GL WE Q LONG, T R 01-Jan-01 OVERSEAS<br />

LCDR GL WE Q PAESLER, C B 01-Jan-01 SYSCOM - C4ISREW<br />

LCDR GL WE Q STEELE, B S 01-Jan-01 MARITIME COMMAND<br />

LCDR GL MTH COYSH, N A 01-Jan-01 NTC-NEW<br />

LCDR GL WE SM Q JIMMIESON, I D 01-Jan-01 SHEEAN<br />

LCDR GL WE SHINDY, M 01-Jan-01 DMO<br />

LCDR GL ME Q OVERMEYER, R A 01-Jan-01 ADELAIDE<br />

P/LEUT GL (ME) MUTCH, J S 01-Jan-01 ADELAIDE<br />

P/LEUT GL (ME) CASEY, D L 01-Jan-01 DMO<br />

P/LEUT GL (ME) DE WIT, S G 01-Jan-01 DMO<br />

P/LEUT GL (ME) ANDERSON, C J 01-Jan-01 ANZAC<br />

P/LEUT GL (ME) SMITH, S A 01-Jan-01 NEWCASTLE<br />

P/LEUT GL (ME) CHRISTIE-JOHNSTON, S E 01-Jan-01 MANOORA<br />

P/LEUT GL (WE) ARMITAGE, P 01-Jan-01 WARRAMUNGA<br />

P/LEUT GL (WE) DELANY, P W 01-Jan-01 SYDNEY<br />

LCDR GL ETS THIELE, D A 01-Jan-01 PERS EXEC<br />

P/LEUT GL WEA BROWN, C J 01-Jan-01 KANIMBLA<br />

30


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

Incumbent Rank Name Seniority Establishment<br />

P/LEUT GL (ME) WILSON, G I 01-Jan-01 ARUNTA<br />

LCDR GL MT Q SM SLAPE, B K 01-Jan-01 SYSCOM<br />

LCDR GL ME SM Q BROWN, R D 01-Jan-01 DMO<br />

LCDR GL EOE WE O’DONOGHUE, A J 01-Jan-01 SYSCOM<br />

LCDR GL ME Q SWAN, D M 01-Jan-01 DMO<br />

LCDR GL ME Q ROBERTSON, D 01-Jan-01 HS SHIP RED CREW<br />

LCDR GL ME Q RICHARDS, K A R 01-Jan-01 HS SHIP BLUE CREW<br />

LCDR GL ME Q MINGAY, P J 01-Jan-01 MCD FEG<br />

T/LCDR GL ME Q GRIFFITHS, D W 06-Feb-01 DMO<br />

LEUT GL WE PARRY, M M 07-Mar-01 NTC<br />

T/LCDR GL WE WILSON, P W 06-Apr-01 NTC-NEW<br />

T/LCDR GL WE Q KAVANAGH, D J 12-Apr-01 DMO<br />

T/LCDR GL AE Q CORNISH, D J 26-Apr-01 723 SQN<br />

Sailors’ Promotions<br />

Initials Name From To Location Date<br />

A T CALDERAZZO ABATV LSATV ALBATROSS 31 JAN 01<br />

A J LUCK ABATV LSATV ALBATROSS 31 JAN 01<br />

K M KARGER POATA CPOATA ALBATROSS 31 JAN 01<br />

A W BUCKMAN ABATA LSATA ALBATROSS 31 JAN 01<br />

S L GANNON LSATA POATA ALBATROSS 31 JAN 01<br />

M CANNING POATA CPOATA HARMAN 31 JAN 01<br />

D J FAY POATA CPOATA HARMAN 31 JAN 01<br />

G K WHALLEY ABATA LSATA HARMAN 31 JAN 01<br />

R B SAMUEL ABATV LSATV NEWCASTLE 31 JAN 01<br />

S R CHIPMAN ABATA LSATA NEWCASTLE 31 JAN 01<br />

C C RANGA POATV CPOATV NHQ STH QLD 31 JAN 01<br />

S A MARGETTS LSATA POATA SUCCESS 31 JAN 01<br />

R J DOREY ABATV LSATV SUCCESS 31 JAN 01<br />

J F KICK ABATV LSATV SUCCESS 31 JAN 01<br />

S T HUSTWIT ABATA LSATA SUCCESS 31 JAN 01<br />

G L SHEPHARD POATA CPOATA SYDNEY 31 JAN 01<br />

C B LOVETT LSATV POATV 723 SQN 31 JAN 01<br />

L A STEWART LSATA POATA 723 SQN 31 JAN 01<br />

S N BATES ABATA LSATA 723 SQN 31 JAN 01<br />

H DALE ABATA LSATA 723 SQN 31 JAN 01<br />

D P LIBERALE LSATA POATA 816 SQN 31 JAN 01<br />

D C HAZELL LSATA POATA 816 SQN 31 JAN 01<br />

C M HIGGS LSATA POATA 816 SQN 31 JAN 01<br />

J T WHEELER ABATA LSATA 816 SQN 31 JAN 01<br />

P J MERCER ABATA LSATA 816 SQN 31 JAN 01<br />

D B TEBBIT LSATA POATA 817 SQN 31 JAN 01<br />

G A SCHMIDT ABATA LSATA 817 SQN 31 JAN 01<br />

M CULLIS ABATA LSATA 817 SQN 31 JAN 01<br />

31


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

Initials Name From To Location Date<br />

D L SAUNDERS ABATA LSATA 818 SQN 31 JAN 01<br />

D BLATTNER LSATV POATV HS 723 SQN 31 JAN 01<br />

I M WILLIAMS POATV CPOATV KANIMBLA 31 JAN 01<br />

CUNNINGHAM POET CPOET CERBERUS 31 MAR 01<br />

BORGO POET CPOET HARMAN 31 MAR 01<br />

ANDERSON POET CPOET KUTTABUL 31 MAR 01<br />

SPEED POET CPOET KUTTABUL 31 MAR 01<br />

LANSDELL POET CPOET MELBOURNE 31 MAR 01<br />

EDMONDSTON POET CPOET NEWCASTLE 31 MAR 01<br />

HARRISON A/CPOET CPOET NEWCASTLE 31 MAR 01<br />

SCHAUER POET CPOET WESTRALIA 31 MAR 01<br />

CAREY POETSM CPOETSM WALLER 31 MAR 01<br />

CROCKENBERG POMT CPOMT ADELAIDE 31 MAR 01<br />

HERBERT POMT CPOMT ANZAC 31 MAR 01<br />

PARRY POMT CPOMT ARUNTA 31 MAR 01<br />

DINGLE POMT CPOMT CAIRNS 31 MAR 01<br />

LEGG POMT CPOMT CERBERUS 31 MAR 01<br />

COLBOURNE POMT CPOMT COONAWARRA 31 MAR 01<br />

COOKSLEY A/CPOMT CPOMT CRESWELL 31 MAR 01<br />

CLAESSENS POMT CPOMT DARWIN 31 MAR 01<br />

SPARKS POMT CPOMT KANIMBLA 31 MAR 01<br />

CRANDON POMT CPOMT SYDNEY 31 MAR 01<br />

BARTELS POMTSM CPOMTSM COLLINS 31 MAR 01<br />

BEETON POMTSM CPOMTSM HHQ-SA 31 MAR 01<br />

HERRINGER POMTSM CPOMTSM SHEEAN 31 MAR 01<br />

COSTELLO A/CPOMTSM CPOMTSM STIRLING 31 MAR 01<br />

RYAN POMTSM CPOMTSM STIRLING 31 MAR 01<br />

HILLS ABET LSET ANZAC 31 MAR 01<br />

HOLLOWAY ABET LSET AUSTDEF WASHINGTON 31 MAR 01<br />

VANDERSLUYS ABET LSET AUSTDEF WASHINGTON 31 MAR 01<br />

SQUIRE ABET LSET BRISBANE 31 MAR 01<br />

DELTON ABET LSET BRISBANE 31 MAR 01<br />

GEARY A/LSET LSET BRISBANE 31 MAR 01<br />

CLARK A/LSET LSET BRISBANE 31 MAR 01<br />

BARNES ABET LSET BRISBANE 31 MAR 01<br />

VAN AAKEN A/LSET LSET BRISBANE 31 MAR 01<br />

DIXON ABET LSET BRISBANE 31 MAR 01<br />

HILL ABET LSET BRISBANE 31 MAR 01<br />

WAKELIN ABET LSET BRISBANE 31 MAR 01<br />

CLARK ABET LSET BRISBANE 31 MAR 01<br />

EXTON-JONES ABET LSET CAIRNS 31 MAR 01<br />

CHISHOLM ABET LSET CANBERRA 31 MAR 01<br />

SHARMAN ABET LSET CANBERRA 31 MAR 01<br />

LORRAWAY ABET LSET CERBERUS 31 MAR 01<br />

GORAY ABET LSET CERBERUS 31 MAR 01<br />

ROOMES ABET LSET CERBERUS 31 MAR 01<br />

VAN LEEUWEN ABET LSET CERBERUS 31 MAR 01<br />

CONSTABLE ABET LSET CERBERUS 31 MAR 01<br />

PROKOPIWSKYI ABET LSET COONAWARRA 31 MAR 01<br />

HUNTER ABET LSET COONAWARRA 31 MAR 01<br />

JACKSON ABET LSET DARWIN 31 MAR 01<br />

MCCALL ABET LSET GLADSTONE 31 MAR 01<br />

LAW ABET LSET HARMAN 31 MAR 01<br />

32


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

Initials Name From To Location Date<br />

BOHAN ABET LSET HARMAN 31 MAR 01<br />

SMITH ABET LSET HARMAN 31 MAR 01<br />

TOHA ABET LSET HARMAN 31 MAR 01<br />

ROSS ABET LSET HARMAN 31 MAR 01<br />

CLARK ABET LSET HARMAN 31 MAR 01<br />

MCCROHAN A/LSET LSET IPSWICH 31 MAR 01<br />

KLOTZ ABET LSET KANIMBLA 31 MAR 01<br />

TADULALA ABET LSET KUTTABUL 31 MAR 01<br />

FOULKES ABET LSET KUTTABUL 31 MAR 01<br />

WHITE ABET LSET KUTTABUL 31 MAR 01<br />

INNES ABET LSET KUTTABUL 31 MAR 01<br />

COOK ABET LSET KUTTABUL 31 MAR 01<br />

WOODS ABET LSET KUTTABUL 31 MAR 01<br />

RAY ABET LSET LABUAN 31 MAR 01<br />

DAWSON ABET LSET MANOORA 31 MAR 01<br />

TAYLOR ABET LSET MANOORA 31 MAR 01<br />

PANTEHIS A/LSET LSET NORMAN 31 MAR 01<br />

MARIOTTO ABET LSET NUSHIP WARRAMUNGA 31 MAR 01<br />

WILLIAMS ABET LSET STIRLING 31 MAR 01<br />

CROTHERS ABET LSET STIRLING 31 MAR 01<br />

TURNER ABET LSET STIRLING 31 MAR 01<br />

CHEFFINS ABET LSET STIRLING 31 MAR 01<br />

DONALD ABET LSET STIRLING 31 MAR 01<br />

JUSTICE ABET LSET STIRLING 31 MAR 01<br />

HELDERMAN ABET LSET SUCCESS 31 MAR 01<br />

KIRK ABET LSET SUCCESS 31 MAR 01<br />

DEANE ABET LSET TOBRUK 31 MAR 01<br />

TITMUS ABET LSET WATERHEN 31 MAR 01<br />

HILL ABET LSET WATSON 31 MAR 01<br />

COTT ABET LSET WATSON 31 MAR 01<br />

HANCOCK ABET LSET WESTRALIA 31 MAR 01<br />

PICKARD ABET LSET WHYALLA 31 MAR 01<br />

TORPSTROM ABETSM LSETSM COLLINS 31 MAR 01<br />

CLIST ABETSM LSETSM DECHAINEUX 31 MAR 01<br />

MATHEWS ABMT LSMT ADELAIDE 31 MAR 01<br />

GRAME ABMT LSMT ADELAIDE 31 MAR 01<br />

CHRISTENSEN ABMT LSMT ANZAC 31 MAR 01<br />

RODGER ABMT LSMT ANZAC 31 MAR 01<br />

VELNOWETH ABMT LSMT ANZAC 31 MAR 01<br />

KINGWELL ABMT LSMT ARUNTA 31 MAR 01<br />

YORK ABMT LSMT ARUNTA 31 MAR 01<br />

WOODARD ABMT LSMT ARUNTA 31 MAR 01<br />

CLARK ABMT LSMT ARUNTA 31 MAR 01<br />

PADMORE ABMT LSMT BENDIGO 31 MAR 01<br />

DOWNING ABMT LSMT BRISBANE 31 MAR 01<br />

BROCK ABMT LSMT BRISBANE 31 MAR 01<br />

ROBERTSON ABMT LSMT BRISBANE 31 MAR 01<br />

RADZI ABMT LSMT BRUNEI 31 MAR 01<br />

BISHOP ABMT LSMT BUNBURY 31 MAR 01<br />

MONSIGNEUR A/LSMT LSMT CAIRNS 31 MAR 01<br />

NYSEN ABMT LSMT CANBERRA 31 MAR 01<br />

FOLKES A/LSMT LSMT CERBERUS 31 MAR 01<br />

BRODIE ABMT LSMT CERBERUS 31 MAR 01<br />

33


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

Initials Name From To Location Date<br />

COSTER ABMT LSMT CERBERUS 31 MAR 01<br />

SYMONS ABMT LSMT COONAWARRA 31 MAR 01<br />

PAICE ABMT LSMT COONAWARRA 31 MAR 01<br />

MARSDEN ABMT LSMT CRESWELL 31 MAR 01<br />

ROSENGREN ABMT LSMT CRESWELL 31 MAR 01<br />

MURFETT ABMT LSMT CRESWELL 31 MAR 01<br />

SHARRETT ABMT LSMT DARWIN 31 MAR 01<br />

REIGER ABMT LSMT DARWIN 31 MAR 01<br />

RICHARDS ABMT LSMT DARWIN 31 MAR 01<br />

CARTER ABMT LSMT FREMANTLE 31 MAR 01<br />

JANKOWSKI ABMT LSMT GAWLER 31 MAR 01<br />

CLARK ABMT LSMT GEELONG 31 MAR 01<br />

MOORE ABMT LSMT GEELONG 31 MAR 01<br />

JURGENS ABMT LSMT HARMAN 31 MAR 01<br />

MAXWELL ABMT LSMT JERVIS BAY 31 MAR 01<br />

HUNT ABMT LSMT KANIMBLA 31 MAR 01<br />

FOX ABMT LSMT KANIMBLA 31 MAR 01<br />

GIBLING ABMT LSMT KUTTABUL 31 MAR 01<br />

BELL ABMT LSMT KUTTABUL 31 MAR 01<br />

POZZEBON ABMT LSMT KUTTABUL 31 MAR 01<br />

SHERER ABMT LSMT KUTTABUL 31 MAR 01<br />

HOWARD ABMT LSMT KUTTABUL 31 MAR 01<br />

CRIDLAND ABMT LSMT KUTTABUL 31 MAR 01<br />

MACDONALD ABMT LSMT KUTTABUL 31 MAR 01<br />

MCKIE ABMT LSMT KUTTABUL 31 MAR 01<br />

LANGLOIS ABMT LSMT KUTTABUL 31 MAR 01<br />

HILLMAN ABMT LSMT LABUAN 31 MAR 01<br />

WATKINS ABMT LSMT MANOORA 31 MAR 01<br />

BARTLETT A/LSMT LSMT MELBOURNE 31 MAR 01<br />

BENBOW ABMT LSMT MELBOURNE 31 MAR 01<br />

HORAN ABMT LSMT MELBOURNE 31 MAR 01<br />

SMITH ABMT LSMT NORMAN 31 MAR 01<br />

BEST ABMT LSMT NUSHIP GASCOYNE 31 MAR 01<br />

MUIR ABMT LSMT NUSHIP WARRAMUNGA 31 MAR 01<br />

DAVISON ABMT LSMT SHEPPARTON 31 MAR 01<br />

BOURDON ABMT LSMT STIRLING 31 MAR 01<br />

TOMES ABMT LSMT STIRLING 31 MAR 01<br />

HARRIS ABMT LSMT STIRLING 31 MAR 01<br />

HOWELL ABMT LSMT STIRLING 31 MAR 01<br />

BASSIE ABMT LSMT STIRLING 31 MAR 01<br />

LOVELL A/LSMT LSMT SUCCESS 31 MAR 01<br />

WHITBREAD ABMT LSMT SUCCESS 31 MAR 01<br />

SEATS ABMT LSMT TOWNSVILLE 31 MAR 01<br />

CLAYTON ABMT LSMT WARRNAMBOOL 31 MAR 01<br />

BLOOMFIELD ABMT LSMT WATERHEN 31 MAR 01<br />

CORLIS ABMT LSMT WATERHEN 31 MAR 01<br />

BRYANT ABMT LSMT WATERHEN 31 MAR 01<br />

BEACH ABMT LSMT WATERHEN 31 MAR 01<br />

PIPPIN ABMT LSMT WATERHEN 31 MAR 01<br />

MERIVALE ABMT LSMT WESTRALIA 31 MAR 01<br />

PELHAM ABMT LSMT WESTRALIA 31 MAR 01<br />

SALZMANN ABMT LSMT WHYALLA 31 MAR 01<br />

VAN BAAK ABMT LSMT WHYALLA 31 MAR 01<br />

34


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

Initials Name From To Location Date<br />

WESTON ABMTSM LSMTSM SHEEAN 31 MAR 01<br />

JEFFERSON ABMTSM LSMTSM STIRLING 31 MAR 01<br />

HELLER ABMTSM LSMTSM STIRLING 31 MAR 01<br />

MARTIN ABMTSM LSMTSM STIRLING 31 MAR 01<br />

CLIFFORD P/LSMT P/POMT BALIKPAPAN 31 MAR 01<br />

GODFREY LSET POET ADELAIDE 31 MAR 01<br />

KILBURN LSET POET BENALLA 31 MAR 01<br />

BOX LSET POET BRISBANE 31 MAR 01<br />

MITCHELL LSET POET CAIRNS 31 MAR 01<br />

BATH LSET POET CAIRNS 31 MAR 01<br />

BAKER LSET POET CERBERUS 31 MAR 01<br />

JENNER LSET POET COONAWARRA 31 MAR 01<br />

KNIGHT LSET POET HARMAN 31 MAR 01<br />

BRYANT LSET POET KUTTABUL 31 MAR 01<br />

BOUNDS LSET POET KUTTABUL 31 MAR 01<br />

CAMPBELL LSET POET KUTTABUL 31 MAR 01<br />

MCLEAN LSET POET SUCCESS 31 MAR 01<br />

HUGHES LSET POET WALLER 31 MAR 01<br />

FORSTER LSET POET WALLER 31 MAR 01<br />

CROFFT LSMT POMT BETANO 31 MAR 01<br />

CLARK LSMT POMT BRISBANE 31 MAR 01<br />

JANSEN LSMT POMT CAIRNS 31 MAR 01<br />

ARMITAGE LSMT POMT CANBERRA 31 MAR 01<br />

VERVAART LSMT POMT CERBERUS 31 MAR 01<br />

BYRNES LSMT POMT CRESWELL 31 MAR 01<br />

PUSEY LSMT POMT DUBBO 31 MAR 01<br />

RUDD LSMT POMT GAWLER 31 MAR 01<br />

ADAMS LSMT POMT GAWLER 31 MAR 01<br />

QUIRKE LSMT POMT IPSWICH 31 MAR 01<br />

DAVIS LSMT POMT KANIMBLA 31 MAR 01<br />

MULLANE LSMT POMT KANIMBLA 31 MAR 01<br />

JEFFERS LSMT POMT KUTTABUL 31 MAR 01<br />

PAGE LSMT POMT KUTTABUL 31 MAR 01<br />

DORWARD LSMT POMT PENGUIN 31 MAR 01<br />

WILLETT LSMT POMT STIRLING 31 MAR 01<br />

JONES LSMT POMT STIRLING 31 MAR 01<br />

HOGARTH LSMTSM POMTSM DECHAINEUX 31 MAR 01<br />

HOWIE LSMTSM POMTSM SHEEAN 31 MAR 01<br />

HYDE LSMTSM POMTSM SHEEAN 31 MAR 01<br />

SOUTH LSMTSM POMTSM STIRLING 31 MAR 01<br />

ROWLEY LSMTSM POMTSM STIRLING 31 MAR 01<br />

NEST LSMTSM POMTSM STIRLING 31 MAR 01<br />

MEARS LSMT POMT CESSNOCK 31 MAR 01<br />

AHERN LSMT POMT KUTTABUL 31 MAR 01<br />

WORDSWORTH LSET POET WATERHEN 31 MAR 01<br />

MILLS ABET LSET HARMAN 31 MAR 01<br />

BISHOP ABET LSET WATERHEN 31 MAR 01<br />

35


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

LPA’s, The Opportunity Beckons<br />

By LEUT Richard Loizou, RAN<br />

With the exception of the DDG’s the two LPA’s HMAS<br />

MANOORA and KANIMBLA have the largest technical department<br />

in the RAN. For the technical sailor MANOORA<br />

provides some unique challenges and advantages beyond<br />

serving on other RAN major fleet units.<br />

ploy a fully operational command headquarters to anywhere<br />

in the world. This now means that for the ET technical<br />

sailor MANOORA is longer a poor posting. It can only be<br />

seen as an opportunity to work with the most advanced<br />

communications equipment in the ADF.<br />

The LPA’s are perhaps the only vessels left in the RAN where<br />

traditional means of engineering occurs. Ships’ staffs are<br />

regularly involved in <strong>Engineering</strong> Casualty Control Drill’s<br />

that typically involve identification and rectification of<br />

faults both major and minor. Other engineering activities<br />

on board include planned maintenance routines and repair<br />

of faulty equipment where it is in the capability of the ships<br />

staff. MANOORA has fitted a fully functional machine<br />

workshop, which includes a drill press, a lathe, an electric<br />

hacksaw and a mill. This allows the ship to undertake a<br />

range of repair and maintenance activities that are far beyond<br />

the capabilities of other major fleet units.<br />

HMAS MANOORA is a major fleet unit of the HMA Ships<br />

grouped in the Amphibious and Afloat Support Force Element<br />

Group. The ship is designated as an Amphibious<br />

Transport (LPA), derived from the USN Newport Class LST.<br />

Essentially the ship is a multi purpose troop, stores, and<br />

equipment carrier capable of supporting amphibious and<br />

transports operations. The ship design allows for the loading<br />

and discharge of troops, stores and equipment from an<br />

established port or when at anchor, when supported by either<br />

LCM8/LCH and/or helicopters.<br />

A special feature of the Ship’s heavy lift capability is a heavy<br />

lift crane cable of loads up to 70 tonnes. This enable<br />

MANOORA to embark Leopard Main battle tanks plus a<br />

number of wheeled vehicles and artillery in addition to the<br />

troop lift capability.<br />

When the LPA’s were procured from the USN it is fair to say<br />

that they were in a poor state. This is no longer the case.<br />

The LPA is one of the most valuable assets of the RAN. HMAS<br />

MANOORA has also recently been fitted with a communications<br />

suite that makes it the RAN’s most capable command<br />

and control ship. It has filled the ADF’s void of a<br />

mobile (floating) command centre. The ADF can now de-<br />

HMAS MANOORA combines two ages of technological advancement.<br />

Above the weather deck, MANOORA is a modern<br />

ship that utilises state of the art technological<br />

equipment. It has been fitted with modern facilities such<br />

as a fully functional hospital and operating facilities that<br />

will be the only ADF afloat medical facility with the ability<br />

to take X-rays. Given this extensive medical and communications<br />

fit one could be forgiven in forgetting that<br />

MANOORA was built in the 1960’s given the equipment that<br />

is now fitted.<br />

Below the weather deck is separate issue and this is what<br />

provides the challenge to the Technical sailor who is posted<br />

to one of the LPA’s. Both, MANOORA and KANIMBLA make<br />

use of their original engineering fit. The main propulsion<br />

engines are ALCO V16 Turbo Diesel engines with each LPA<br />

being fitted with six (that’s correct) six engines. In addition<br />

to this the LPA’s have four V8 Turbo diesel generators. This<br />

means that across the four separate main engineering<br />

spaces of the LPA, up to 10 diesel engines may be running<br />

at once. (In addition there may also be running 4 fire pumps,<br />

two CHT’s, 4 air compressors, an RO plant and 3 main airconditioning<br />

units. In fast transit mode HMAS MANOORA<br />

runs all six main propulsion engines and two generators<br />

with the remaining generators at immediate notice. Most<br />

of the systems fitted make use of original as fitted technology.<br />

For example, to transfer fuel or oil, valves have to be<br />

manually open and shut for correct system alignment, this<br />

requires a qualified stoker to enter the space and physically<br />

turn the valve as is the case on DDG’s.<br />

On the other hand, some of the systems on board are at<br />

technological level that is expected of a ship built in the<br />

1990’s. PLC’s control the potable water distribution pumps,<br />

the air conditioning, reverse osmosis plant, the main engine<br />

controls and air compressors on board. MANOORA has also<br />

been fitted with what must be the most effective Reverse<br />

Osmosis plant in the fleet (the personnel on board appreci-<br />

36


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

ate 10-minute showers after every watch in any case). This<br />

plant at full operation can produce in excess of 200 tons of<br />

water a day, which is almost a ton of water per crewmember<br />

a day. The reason for fitting such a plant is due to the ships<br />

troop lift capability where when fully loaded the ship can<br />

have 650 personnel on board.<br />

The wide fit of equipment that is utilised on the LPA makes<br />

the LPA a very diverse and challenging platform to work<br />

on. Personnel who are posted to MANOORA are expected<br />

to maintain equipment that is man power intensive and requires<br />

lateral thinking to upkeep. On board maintenance is<br />

usually only limited to stores and the expertise of the Technical<br />

department. Personnel are also expected to remain<br />

abreast of the latest in technological advances and be prepared<br />

to work on modern, repair by replacement type<br />

equipment.<br />

The LPA’s provide a unique opportunity to people who are<br />

looking for challenge. For those technical personnel in the<br />

fleet who think the are ready for the opportunity to serve<br />

on one the most progressive units in the fleet MANOORA<br />

and KANIMBLA are ready. The question is have you got what<br />

it takes?<br />

37


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

A Mine for Posterity<br />

By LCDR Mike Rashleigh, RAN (OIC FIMA Cairns)<br />

Late last year HMAS Cairns was approached by the local<br />

chapter of ROTARY to assist in setting up an above ground<br />

‘Time Capsule’ in a Cairns park. The request for assistance<br />

was sent South and duly the <strong>Navy</strong> donated an old, and<br />

rather dilapidated, Mk 17 WW2 Buoyant mine and carriage,<br />

to become the actual time capsule. Job done? Hardly, now<br />

the real work began of refurbishing the mine. Not only did<br />

the mine have to look good, but had to be made accessible<br />

for the encapsulated items and to last the required twentyfive<br />

years.<br />

About the Author<br />

LCDR Mike Rashleigh started his “<strong>Navy</strong>” life as an Engineer<br />

in the Merchant Marine in 1964 for 11 years, then served in<br />

the RNZN, transferring to the RAN in 1990. Presently proudly<br />

serving as the CO of FIMA Cairns, the best bunch of Techo’s<br />

North of Sydney and East of Darwin.<br />

The FIMA team volunteered to undertake the task as a training<br />

project. The mine was stripped, replacement horns were<br />

machined, all interior baffles removed, end caps made accessible<br />

and air/water tight, mine secured and made people<br />

proof, grit blasted and finally corrosion controlled to last<br />

for many years. To acknowledge the project and give the<br />

<strong>Navy</strong> some ongoing public visibility, a bronze plaque was<br />

cast and fitted to the mine. Sometime mid this year the<br />

carriage and mine will become a commemorative monument<br />

and time capsule on public view for twenty-five years.<br />

Along with it, the skills and efforts of the FIMA Cairns Techo’s<br />

will also be remembered. My personal thanks to the FIMA<br />

Team for a job you can all be proud of.<br />

The mine ready to go.<br />

The mine and the boys from Corrosion Control (Kneeling in front, left: CPOBM ‘Dixie’<br />

Lee, right, LSBM ‘Ronny’ Regan. Standing left to right: ABBM ‘Pops’ Greer, ABBM<br />

‘Mal’ Dorwood, and ABBM ‘Vinny’ Manser)<br />

38


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

HMAS WALLER’s Brush with the<br />

Cookie Cutter Shark<br />

By LCDR Forbes PETERS, RAN<br />

On the 14 May 00 a priority 3 defect signal was received<br />

from HMAS WALLER. A 2.5cm ‘gouge’ had appeared on<br />

the Intercept array protective moulding. Two other<br />

‘delamination’ were observed that hadn’t penetrated the<br />

surface of the moulding. Initial technical prognosis was<br />

difficult without photographic evidence.<br />

On the 31 May 00 several images arrived by e-mail. The<br />

damage was immediately identified by the FEG technical<br />

department as the bite marks of the Cookie Cutter shark.<br />

One of our beloved steel sharks had fallen pray to a 50cm<br />

long shark (Isistus brasiliensis or the Cookie Cutter Shark)<br />

with eyes bigger than his stomach.<br />

The Cookie Cutter Shark<br />

The shark is named after the neat cookie shaped wounds<br />

that it leaves on the bodies of larger fish and marine mammals.<br />

The species has a small cigar-shaped body (up to 50<br />

cm in length), a conical snout and two low, spineless dorsal<br />

fins positioned posteriorly on the body. It is dark brown<br />

dorsally, lighter below, and has a distinct dark collar around<br />

the gill region. The entire ventral Surface is covered in a<br />

dense network of tiny photophores (light producing organs),<br />

which in life<br />

produce an<br />

even greenish<br />

glow.<br />

The shark<br />

has small<br />

erect teeth in<br />

the upper<br />

jaw and<br />

Cookie Cutter Shark Bite from HMAS WALLER’s<br />

Intercept Array Sonar Dome<br />

larger triangular teeth in the lower jaw. The cookie cutter<br />

shark attaches itself to its prey with its suctorial lips, and<br />

then spins to cut out a cookie shaped plug of flesh from<br />

the larger animal (In this case, quite a bit larger). The shark<br />

lives below 1000m during the day and vertically migrates<br />

at night into the surface waters. There have been numerous<br />

reports from the USN on damage caused to submarine<br />

sonar domes. Further information for the ichthyological<br />

inclined can be found in www.austmus.gov.au/fish/species/ibrasil.htm<br />

The moral of the story is “check your towed array” and don’t<br />

always blame the RIB!<br />

39


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

A Word from the <strong>Engineering</strong><br />

Sailor’s Poster<br />

By WOET Simon Luck, OIC CMC3<br />

For those of you whom my team or I have not met, I would<br />

like to introduce my highly dedicated staff members and<br />

myself. The Technical Career Management Cell 3 team consists<br />

of the following members:<br />

• CPOMT Shane Biddle AUXMT Junior Sailors<br />

• CPOMT Graeme Light AUXMT Senior Sailors<br />

• CPOET James Levay ANZET<br />

• POET Shaun Beetham FFGET<br />

• CPOET Danni Snow GENCOM<br />

• CPOMT Michael Nilon ANZMT<br />

• CPOMT Michael Burton FFGMT<br />

• POMT Jeffrey Hutchinson Training Co-ordinator<br />

• POWTR Peter Schultz ET Promotions<br />

• POWTR Patrick Mills MT Promotions<br />

• ABET Jennifer Parnell ET Admin<br />

• ABMT Cath Karlsson MT Admin<br />

Having recently been promoted, on the 18th December 2000,<br />

I have taken over the reigns as OIC CMC 3 at Directorate of<br />

Sailors Career Management (DSCM) from WOET Dave<br />

“Titch” Turner. My previous employment was a stint as the<br />

FFG ET Career Manager.<br />

This year is shaping up to be busier than ever, we are less<br />

than 5 months into the year and already we have well over<br />

11,000 promulgated movements for MT/ET technical sailors.<br />

The Career Managers have been continually on the road<br />

visiting as many units as possible. The Ships/Establishments<br />

visited to date, in no particular order, include:<br />

• HMAS CESSNOCK, HMAS GAWLER, HMAS DUBBO,<br />

HMAS WOLLONGONG, HMAS GEELONG<br />

• HMAS BALIKAPAPAN, HMAS BETANO<br />

• HMAS KANIMBLA, HMAS MANOORA, HMAS JERVIS<br />

BAY<br />

• HMAS BRISBANE, HMAS SYDNEY<br />

• HMAS ANZAC, HMAS ARUNTA<br />

• HMAS WESTRALIA, , HMAS SUCCESS &<br />

• HMAS KUTTABUL, HMAS CERBERUS, FIMA SYDNEY,<br />

NAVCOMMSTA, SHOALBAY RECEIVING STATION,<br />

FIMA DARWIN<br />

If you have not yet been visited by your respective friendly<br />

Career Managers and are unaware of visit plans to your Ship<br />

or Establishment, please contact myself via (02) 62653300<br />

The team from DSCM:<br />

Back Row (L-R) CPOET James Levay, CPOET Shaun Beetham, POWTR Patrick<br />

Mills. Front Row (L-R) CPOET Michael Burton, WOET Simon Luck, ABET<br />

Jennifer Parnell, ABMT Catherine Karlsson. Absent on Career Visits: CPOMT<br />

Shane Biddle, CPOMT Graeme Light, CPOMT Michael Nilon, A/CPOET Dani<br />

Snow, POWTR Peter Schultz<br />

40


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

or e-mail Simon.Luck@cbr.defence.gov.au. Otherwise, your<br />

unit can request a visit by signal to DSCM.<br />

Major events for us this year include:<br />

• Formulation and implementation of a plan to reduce<br />

the number of provisionally protected sailors,<br />

• Decommissioning of HMAS BRISBANE and HMAS<br />

JERVIS BAY,<br />

• Introduction of PMKEYS,<br />

• Introduction of TRI-SERVICE appraisal’s,<br />

• Introduction of Rank Based Promotion System,<br />

• Continuing introduction of New platforms MHC’s and<br />

ANZAC’s, and<br />

• Formulation of FFG UP HR plan.<br />

PMKEYS<br />

The single biggest transformation for RAN human resource<br />

management is about to take place, with the advent of the<br />

introduction of PMKEYS and the closure of NPEMS. As we<br />

go to print, NPEMS personnel data will be migrated to<br />

PMKEYS on the 02 May 2001 and PMKEYS will go live on 07<br />

MAY 01 with NPEMS placed into read only mode.<br />

conducting system reliability testing and checking the accuracy<br />

of data migration. Shortly, a signal will be released<br />

outlining emergency contact details for DSCM during this<br />

period and I ask that you remain patient.<br />

DSCM Contact Details<br />

If you have any questions, your first point of contact should<br />

be the following respective Able Seaman:<br />

• MT sailors (02) 62653305, and<br />

• ET sailors (02) 62653300.<br />

These contacts are AB Parnell and Karlsson and are well<br />

versed in the workings of NPEMS (and will be with PMKEYS<br />

on its introduction) and I rely on them for the secretarial<br />

running of the cell. They are more than happy to answer<br />

any general questions you may have.<br />

Remember: The way to win a war is to make certain it never<br />

starts<br />

I look forward to meeting you in the future.<br />

During the above stated period and for an additional two<br />

weeks, DSCM will be in transition phase. The team will be<br />

NAVSYS Professional Officer<br />

Development<br />

By Mr Charles A. Manu<br />

NAVSYS Branch has established an ongoing Professional Officer Development Program based on competencies recognised<br />

by the Institution of Engineers Australia (IEAust) and the <strong>Australian</strong> Public Service for competent engineers. The<br />

Program aims to provide the Department with a pool of well-qualified, trained, professional engineers capable of meeting<br />

the needs of NAVSYS Branch and the Department of Defence in a changing environment.<br />

In line with the guidelines from IEAust, young graduates (PO1s) who join the Branch enter into a three year Development<br />

Program utilising 6-month rotations plus a secondment to any recognised and relevant organisation involved in<br />

engineering to support Defence for practical training. Professional officers are required to prepare reports after their<br />

industrial rotation and make a presentation to the relevant staff of the Branch. Effective FY 2001/2002 DGNAVSYS has<br />

given his approval for PO2s to travel overseas to undergo 6-month industrial training.<br />

Military engineering staffs with the requisite qualifications that meet IEAust graduate membership requirements are<br />

encouraged to apply for these positions, as they become available. Any enquiry regarding Professional Officer’s development<br />

can be directed to Mr Charles A. Manu, Assistant Director Professional Development, CP4-7-121, ( (02) 6266 2018<br />

or e-mail charles.manu@cbr.defence.gov.au<br />

41


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

2000 Graduates<br />

Mechanical Engineers Application Course<br />

Posted to:<br />

SBLT Lucy Guerin<br />

HMAS Kanimbla<br />

SBLT Richard Loizou HMAS Manoora<br />

SBLT Christian Neurauter<br />

SBLT Bradley Smith<br />

SBLT Russel Smith<br />

HMAS Tobruk<br />

HMAS Success<br />

HMAS Darwin<br />

Weapons Engineers Application Course<br />

Posted to:<br />

LEUT Dan Gram<br />

HMAS Canberra<br />

SBLT Michael Davis<br />

HMAS Brisbane<br />

SBLT Claire Jones<br />

HMAS Newcastle<br />

SBLT Jason Nissen<br />

HMAS Anzac<br />

SBLT Joshua Wilkinson<br />

HMAS Anzac<br />

Aviation Engineer’s—Certificate of<br />

Competency<br />

Posted to:<br />

SBLT Sands Skinner 816 Squadron<br />

LEUT Jason Becker<br />

HMAS Harman (DMO)<br />

SBLT Simon Levy<br />

LEUT Mark Simmonds<br />

LEUT Glen Larsen<br />

LEUT Peter Duffy<br />

LEUT Gary Holgate<br />

HMAS Albatross (AVN FEG)<br />

HMAS Albatross (AVN FEG)<br />

HMAS Cerberus (RAAF)<br />

HMAS Albatross<br />

HMAS Albatross (AVN FEG)<br />

Defence Force Qualifications<br />

Recognised<br />

The recently published Guidelines for the Recognition<br />

of <strong>Australian</strong> Defence Force (ADF) Marine Qualifications<br />

has created a great deal of interest amongst defence<br />

force personnel, whose skills and training have not previously<br />

been recognised by marine authorities for<br />

awarding Certificates of Competency.<br />

The Guideline, which was published in November 2000,<br />

is designed to provide a consistent approach to the recognition<br />

of ADF training, qualifications and sea service<br />

by marine authorities.<br />

To obtain a copy of the guidelines please contact NMSC,<br />

or go to www.nmsc.gov.au. ADF personnel will need to<br />

liaise with the marine authority in their state or territory<br />

to obtain recognition and, when all requirements<br />

have been met, apply for a Certificate of Competency.<br />

NMSC does not assess applications or issue Certificates<br />

of Competency.<br />

42


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

Hot Corrosion of Marine Gas<br />

Turbine Blades<br />

An <strong>Engineering</strong> Plant Component in a Hostile Environment<br />

By LCDR Andrew Fysh, RAN<br />

Introduction<br />

Gas turbine engines are in widespread use today, because<br />

of their combination of performance, lightweight, low maintenance<br />

requirement, and efficiency. Developed primarily<br />

for the aircraft industry, they have found more recent application<br />

in warships (and, more recently still, in commercial<br />

shipping). Many internal components of the gas turbine<br />

are subjected to temperatures well in excess of 500 0 C, necessitating<br />

careful design and in-service management to<br />

ensure reliability and to avoid expensive repairs. This report<br />

outlines the corrosion effects of these temperatures, in<br />

the marine operating environment, with specific reference<br />

to the General Electric LM2500 gas turbine in use in the<br />

<strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Australian</strong> <strong>Navy</strong>’s surface fleet.<br />

Development of Gas Turbine<br />

Hot Section Materials<br />

The Hot Section Environment<br />

The performance requirements of gas turbine engines has<br />

increased considerably since the Whittle engine of the 1930s,<br />

to the end that turbine entry temperatures have more than<br />

doubled. Of all turbine engine components, it is undoubtedly<br />

the high-pressure turbine (HPT) 1 blades, which operate<br />

under the most arduous conditions:<br />

• high temperature (up to 1000 0 C)<br />

• high rotational forces and direct stress<br />

• rapid temperature transients (especially in aircraft<br />

engines)<br />

• hot corrosive combustion gases<br />

• erosive particles entrained in the gases (combustion<br />

by-products such as carbon, airborne particles such<br />

as sand 2 and salt)<br />

The combination of direct stress and temperature encourages<br />

blade creep, while the rapid temperature transients<br />

ultimately cause thermal fatigue. It was these phenomena<br />

that first dictated material requirements for HPT blades.<br />

The Whittle engine commenced service using austenitic<br />

steel; this was found to have insufficient creep strength.<br />

Development of cobalt-based alloys followed, leading to the<br />

now widespread use of cobalt-based and nickel-based<br />

superalloys. Nickel-based superalloys can be routinely used<br />

at temperatures up to 0.8 times melting temperature, and<br />

can have a service life of up to 100 000 hrs at slightly lower<br />

temperatures.<br />

Nickel-Based Superalloys<br />

Table 1 shows the various alloying elements used in nickelbased<br />

superalloys for gas turbine hot-section components,<br />

and their principal characteristics. The composition of two<br />

common alloys is shown for comparison. Inconel® 718 is<br />

an earlier alloy (1960s), and is still used widely in the LM2500<br />

engine for HPT rotor and stator structural components.<br />

René 80 (introduced by General Electric in 1980) has superior<br />

properties designed for use in the LM2500 first-stage<br />

HPT blades. In addition to changes in composition of nickelbased<br />

superalloys since their introduction, further improvements<br />

in properties have arisen from optimisation of<br />

melting, casting and forming methods, hot-working processes<br />

and heat treatments.<br />

In the pursuit of even greater engine performance efficiency,<br />

the stress/temperature environment in some engines is<br />

such that first-stage (and, more recently, second-stage) turbine<br />

blades also require air cooling, by convection through<br />

radial passages. Later blade stages, though less likely to<br />

1 The ‘hot section’ components of a gas turbine engine are the combustor, turbine inlet nozzles, turbine rotor blades, and associated structure and assemblies.<br />

The HPT, consisting of one or more stages of nozzles and rotor blades, receives the hot pressurised gases from the combustor to provide power to<br />

drive the compressor section (enabling the engine to be self-sustaining after start-up). Downstream of the HPT is a propulsion jet (in aircraft engines), or<br />

a mechanically independent low-pressure turbine to drive a propeller shaft (marine engine) or alternator rotor (power generation). The HPT inlet temperature<br />

represents the hottest part of the gas turbine cycle.<br />

2 While predominantly a problem for land-based or marine gas turbines, airborne sand particles have been known to exist at an altitude of 30 000 ft in the<br />

Middle East!<br />

43


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

Table 1 - Common elements of nickel-based superalloys, and composition of typical alloys<br />

Element % in % in Characteristics<br />

Inconel® 718 René 80<br />

Ni 50.0-55.0 Balance • principal constituent - superior mechanical properties and<br />

endurance for high high thermal stress applications.<br />

Cr 17.0-21.0 14.0 • forms protective scale of Cr 2<br />

O 3<br />

when heated in oxygen-rich<br />

environment (better for hot corrosion prevention than Al 2<br />

O 3<br />

,<br />

but is volatile above 95 0 C.<br />

• forms chromium carbides for strength at high temperatures<br />

• primary contributor to hot corrosion resistance.<br />

Fe Balance - • some alloys still contain high iron content for reduced cost.<br />

• less oxidation resistance as Fe 2<br />

O 3<br />

is less adherent oxide scale.<br />

Ti 4.75-5.50 5.0 • strengthens by forming y’ (gamma prime: Ni 3<br />

(Al,Ti), Ni 3<br />

Nb).<br />

Al 0.65-1.15 3.0 • Nb, Ti form strong carbides.<br />

Nb 0.20-0.80 - • Al forms stable Al 2<br />

O 3<br />

protective oxide scale (better for oxidation<br />

prevention than Cr 2<br />

O 3<br />

).<br />

• more recent developments have seen decrease in Cr to<br />

optimise creep rupture resistance of y’ - Al compensates for<br />

loss of oxidation resistance from this reduction in Cr content.<br />

Mo 2.80-3.30 4.0 • provide solid solution strengthening at high temperatures.<br />

W (trace) 4.0 • form complex carbides.<br />

Ta ( n il) -<br />

Co 1.0 max. 9.5 • helps maintain strength at elevated temperatures (reduces<br />

solubility of Al and Ti in the Ni-Cr matrix).<br />

• greater solubility for carbon than Ni.<br />

C 0.08 max. 0.17 • forms carbides with some alloying elements, for improved<br />

microstructural strength.<br />

B 0.006 max. 0.015 • improve creep strength and ductility.<br />

Zr (nil) 0.03 • but, weldability can be adversely affected.<br />

Ca (nil/trace) - • improve workability.<br />

Mg (nil/trace) - • improve oxidation resistance.<br />

Y (nil/trace) -<br />

Hf (nil) - • added in recent years, in small amounts, mainly to cast alloys.<br />

• Improves ductility and strength at low/medium temperatures.<br />

• raises hot tear resistance in directional solidification.<br />

need cooling, may nonetheless contain radial holes to reduce<br />

weight. Given the high temperatures, at which modern<br />

turbines must operate to achieve superior<br />

power-to-weight ratio, this cooling must reduce metal temperatures<br />

to a level several hundred degrees below the local<br />

gas temperature. This results in an extreme temperature<br />

gradient across the blade (which can be reduced by film<br />

cooling techniques, in which air is passed through the blade<br />

wall via discrete holes to form an air film on the blade surface).<br />

Thus, in modern gas turbine engines, the hot section components<br />

are extremely light, hollow (thin-walled) sections<br />

of high-strength superalloy. Corrosion, if allowed to take<br />

44


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

hold, can cause very rapid degradation and, ultimately, expensive<br />

catastrophic failure from ‘domestic object damage’ 3 .<br />

Corrosion can also accelerate the effects of other failure<br />

mechanisms, such as creep and thermal fatigue. In hot section<br />

components of gas turbines, the particular form of corrosion<br />

most prevalent and most destructive is known as hot<br />

corrosion.<br />

Hot Corrosion and its<br />

Consequences<br />

Chemical degradation of hot section components of gas<br />

turbines can be classed as either oxidation or hot corrosion.<br />

Oxidation in marine gas turbines is less predominant<br />

than in industrial or aircraft gas turbines because of their<br />

relatively lower operating temperatures, and will not be<br />

dealt with in this report.<br />

Hot Corrosion pProcess<br />

Because the combustor and HP/LP turbines are supplied<br />

with excess air for cooling, the hot combustion gases are<br />

constantly oxidising. Hot corrosion - sometimes referred<br />

to as turbine sulphidation - is an electrochemical process<br />

of accelerated degradation by oxidation of superalloys and<br />

coatings in combustion gases, which contain impurities<br />

such as sulphur, alkali metals, chloride and vanadium salts,<br />

as well as unburned carbon. It is more prevalent in lowflying<br />

aircraft engines (e.g. helicopters) and marine propulsion<br />

gas turbine engines, which are more susceptible to<br />

seawater ingestion. The basic chemical reaction is:<br />

2NaCl (from sea salt) +S (from fuel) 4 + 2O 2<br />

(from cooling air) → Na 2<br />

SO 4<br />

+ Cl 2<br />

• Type 2 corrosion (low-temperature), which typically<br />

occurs in the range 590 0 C to 820 0 C, with a maximum<br />

at about 700 0 C, characterised by uniform pitting<br />

corrosion attack with no denudation of alloying<br />

elements, and no sulphide formation observed in the<br />

microstructure.<br />

The LM2500 engine has a maximum HPT inlet temperature<br />

in excess of 900 0 C; hence it is potentially susceptible<br />

to both types of hot corrosion.<br />

Phases of Hot Corrosion<br />

Hot corrosion has been observed to occur in two distinct<br />

phases:<br />

• Initiation stage<br />

• Propagation stage<br />

In the initiation stage, the alloy is oxidised to form a protective<br />

barrier of Al 2<br />

O 3<br />

or Cr 2<br />

O 3<br />

, but sulphur penetrates this<br />

scale to form sulfides with the alloy. Over time, growth<br />

stresses develop in the oxide coating, and the oxides dissolve<br />

in the salt deposit. If allowed to continue, the initiation<br />

stage culminates in local salt penetration through the<br />

oxide scale to the alloy surface, causing rapid propagation.<br />

The propagation stage is associated with severe corrosive<br />

attack on the alloy by the Na 2<br />

SO 4<br />

. With today’s thin-walled,<br />

internally cooled turbine blades, catastrophic structural<br />

breakdown would not take long after the onset of rapid<br />

propagation - therefore, the alloy and/or coating of the<br />

blade must be selected so as to maximise the length of the<br />

initiation stage.<br />

Factors affecting the length of the initiation stage - which<br />

can vary from a matter of seconds to thousands of hours -<br />

include:<br />

Deposition of molten flux, based primarily on Na 2<br />

SO 4<br />

but<br />

also containing molten unreacted NaCl, dissolves the normally<br />

stable protective oxides on the turbine blades.<br />

Types of Hot Corrosion<br />

Two types of hot corrosion are generally recognised:<br />

• Type 1 corrosion (high-temperature), which typically<br />

occurs in the range 820 0 C to 920 0 C, with a maximum<br />

at about 870 0 C, characterised by the build-up<br />

of a non-protective oxide layer as oxidation and<br />

sulphidation destroy the metal substrate<br />

• alloy composition<br />

• fabrication methods<br />

• gas composition and velocity<br />

• salt composition<br />

• salt deposition rate<br />

• condition of salt<br />

• temperature<br />

• co-existence of erosion<br />

• specimen geometry in relation to gas path<br />

Consequences of Hot Corrosion<br />

Annex A contains photographs that illustrate the various<br />

effects of hot corrosion on HPT blades.<br />

3 Turbine blade failure can cause up to $500,000 damage downstream.<br />

4 Less predominant, but equally corrosive in its consequence, is the formation of vanadates by similar chemical reaction of vanadium in lower-grade fuels.<br />

45


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

Prevention of Hot Corrosion<br />

To minimise the likelihood of hot corrosion, a number of<br />

‘external’ drivers of the process can be managed in their<br />

design or implementation.<br />

Combustor and Turbine Design (gas flow<br />

dynamics)<br />

Good aerodynamic design of gas path components ensures<br />

that laminar flow is maintained, as the onset of turbulent<br />

flow patterns would be likely to accelerate the corrosion<br />

process.<br />

Air Filtration<br />

Only 30% of the intake air is used for combustion in the<br />

LM2500 engine: the remaining 70% is used for cooling. All<br />

intake air, nonetheless, needs to be filtered to remove foreign<br />

particles and airborne salt. This has the undesirable<br />

effect of reducing engine efficiency as excessively negative<br />

intake pressures are generated. The filters, then, are<br />

designed for a trade-off between effectiveness and air flow<br />

efficiency, and must be regularly and thoroughly washed<br />

down to remove salt deposits. This is not always achievable<br />

during extended ocean transits.<br />

Fuel Quality<br />

Marine gas turbines use marine diesel fuel, with specific<br />

requirements for low sulphur and vanadium content. Once<br />

embarked into ship’s bunkers, the fuel must be purified prior<br />

to consumption, to remove particulate matter and free<br />

water (caused by internal condensation of tanks).<br />

Water-Washing<br />

The LM2500, like most marine gas turbine engines, requires<br />

regular water-washing using a specialised detergent mixture<br />

to remove salt deposits from compressor and turbine<br />

gas-path components. The benefits of this are two-fold:<br />

potentially corrosive deposits are removed, and engine efficiency<br />

is improved by restoring the blade and vane surfaces<br />

to their designed laminar-flow profile.<br />

Inhibition of Hot Corrosion<br />

The inhibition of hot corrosion by the HPT blades themselves<br />

is achieved through the selection of appropriate alloying<br />

elements in the substrate metal. Progressive changes<br />

in alloy chemistry necessary to increase temperature capability<br />

and reliability have resulted in a very significant<br />

decrease in hot corrosion resistance in salt-contaminated<br />

environments: this trade-off in alloy properties has necessitated<br />

the introduction of corrosion-resistant protective<br />

coatings applied to the alloy substrate.<br />

Effect of Alloy Composition<br />

The most important alloying constituent to protect against<br />

hot corrosion is chromium; in particular, the protective layer<br />

of Cr2O3 is self-healing after breakdown, thus prolonging<br />

the initiation stage of the corrosion process. Cobalt-based<br />

superalloys are traditionally regarded as being superior to<br />

nickel-based alloys in corrosion resistance, but the latter has<br />

outstanding strength and oxidation resistance over a much<br />

wider temperature range. The use of chromium as the<br />

major alloying element in nickel-based superalloys, then,<br />

provides an optimal balance of properties. Table 1 has already<br />

shown the various constituents of hot-section alloys.<br />

Protective Coatings<br />

Increases in engine operating temperatures have dictated<br />

the path of development of hot-section superalloys towards<br />

maximising creep strength and minimising weight through<br />

internal cooling channels. Many of these alloys ultimately<br />

have inadequate hot-corrosion resistance, and must rely on<br />

coatings to prevent severe and life-shortening damage.<br />

By specifying low levels of contaminants (sulphur, vanadium)<br />

in fuels, simple diffused aluminide coatings are often<br />

sufficient for aero engines. However, the high and<br />

extremely transient temperature effects are still contributors<br />

to reduced service life - the situation is worse for marine<br />

propulsion gas turbines, where sea water ingestion<br />

accelerates hot corrosion processes. The reality of marine<br />

gas turbine operation also results in lower-grade fuels being<br />

used (there being little choice in many foreign ports of<br />

call).<br />

The principal selection criteria for coatings are:<br />

• high resistance to oxidation and/or corrosion<br />

• minimisation of solubility of molten salt<br />

• adequate ductility to withstand operational strains<br />

without cracking (i.e. must be matched well to mechanical<br />

properties of substrate alloy)<br />

• low rate of interdiffusion between coating and<br />

substrate<br />

• ease of application<br />

• low cost relative to LCC savings from improved service<br />

life<br />

Protective coatings in common use in hot-section applications<br />

can be grouped as follows (in ascending order of cost):<br />

• Aluminide coatings - most effective where metal<br />

temperature and/or environment are not extreme;<br />

easy to strip coatings off during refurbishment; able<br />

to form, and replenish, protective coatings of<br />

alumina; however, prone to brittle cracking at lower<br />

temperatures in high Al concentrations.<br />

46


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

• Platinum-aluminide coatings - enhanced variant<br />

of aluminide coating; inter-diffusion of Pt and Al creates<br />

microstructural features that improve hot-corrosion<br />

resistive properties of coating.<br />

• Overlay coatings - superior ductility; wider range<br />

of chemical compositions (can be tailored to produce<br />

different protective oxide scales depending on service<br />

environment).<br />

Overlay coatings, despite their very high cost, are becoming<br />

more widespread in their application to the most critically<br />

stressed of hot-section components (i.e. HPT blades).<br />

The most common form is MCrAlY (where M is usually cobalt,<br />

nickel, or iron) - the chromium and aluminium provide<br />

corrosion resistance, while yttrium improves oxide<br />

scale adhesion.<br />

In recognition of potential corrosion problems in the marine<br />

application, GE uses two such overlay coatings (BC21<br />

and BC23) on the LM2500 engine HPT blades, applied using<br />

a plasma-coating process.<br />

Coating technology is under continuous development, and<br />

the focus of recent research has been on:<br />

• quality control and non-destructive evaluation of<br />

coated components post-production<br />

• investigation of new coating application processes<br />

(laser glazing, ion implantation)<br />

• development of new coating materials (including ceramics).<br />

Condition Monitoring and<br />

Assessment<br />

In the in-service environment, it is important to be able to<br />

non-destructively assess the condition of hot-section components,<br />

to provide a measure of remaining service life and<br />

to take corrective action to prevent the progress of hot corrosion.<br />

The costs associated with catastrophic internal failure<br />

of gas turbine components are considerably high.<br />

Engine Operating Parameter Monitoring<br />

The most critical operating parameter for hot-corrosion is<br />

the HPT inlet temperature. GE research has shown that<br />

slight increases in HPT inlet temperature in the upper operating<br />

range can have a dramatic effect on hot-corrosion<br />

susceptibility. For the LM2500 engine, GE specifies hot-section<br />

repair intervals based on the operating profile of the<br />

engine (combined effects of inlet temperature value, and<br />

cumulative operating time at that temperature). These<br />

operating-profile-based hot-section repair intervals enable<br />

maximum service life between overhauls, while still minimising<br />

risk of catastrophic failure as a consequence of hot<br />

corrosion.<br />

Borescope Inspection and Limiting<br />

Criteria<br />

GE specifies a comprehensive borescope inspection regime<br />

for all critical components of the LM2500 engine. Its technical<br />

instructions give quite comprehensive guidance on the<br />

limiting criteria for acceptability of defects, once observed.<br />

In particular, no corrosion (or erosion) of the blade coating<br />

is permissible, and the engine must be exchanged and overhauled<br />

should such coating degradation be evident.<br />

The changeout of a gas turbine engine is an expensive and<br />

time-consuming evolution. Borescope inspection is an effective<br />

means of detecting defects before the onset of catastrophic<br />

failure, but is ultimately only as effective as the<br />

naked eye in the initial detection process.<br />

Other Non-destructive Evaluation<br />

Techniques<br />

The challenge in determining remaining life of hot-section<br />

components is to be able to gain sufficient and accurate<br />

data with minimal downtime, so as to maximise the ‘P-F<br />

interval’ 5 . A number of techniques are the subject of current<br />

research, such as optical thermography (identification<br />

of hot-spots on stationary components, indicating localised<br />

breakdown of coatings). Ultrasonic, eddy-current, and X-<br />

ray methods are also applicable, and could be successfully<br />

applied in the field (albeit, with the engine shutdown). As<br />

described earlier, continued improvements in the use of NDE<br />

in the component production phase also provides a higher<br />

level of reliability in the field.<br />

Conclusion and Future<br />

Directions<br />

The requirements for yet further improvements in gas turbine<br />

engine performance remain as strong as they have<br />

been since the 1940s. However, the HPT blades will always<br />

remain the most highly stressed components in the engine,<br />

and hence are still the focus of research and development.<br />

Nickel-based superalloys are already being employed up<br />

to the limit of their temperature capability, so no great improvements<br />

in temperature of operation can be expected<br />

without an entirely new direction in materials development.<br />

5 ‘P-F interval’ is a concept used in Reliability Centred Maintenance and condition monitoring; it refers to the time period between detection of a potential<br />

failure (‘P’) and the actual failure event (‘F’). For condition monitoring to be worthwhile, this interval must be longer than the time needed for predictive<br />

maintenance action to avert the failure. Extending the P-F interval (i.e. by detecting the potential failure earlier) also affords flexibility in scheduling repair<br />

action so as to minimise the operational effects of downtime.<br />

47


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

For now, in the 500-1050 0 C operating range, no other alloy<br />

system has the required combination of strength and corrosion<br />

resistance. The introduction of overlay coatings has<br />

been an essential contributor to this.<br />

Annex A - Hot Corrosion<br />

Photographs 6<br />

In parallel with performance improvements, is the demand<br />

for longer service life and reduced life-cycle costs. Manufacturers<br />

continue to optimise processes to reduce costs of<br />

production and refurbishment of alloy components. Increasing<br />

engine efficiency is also an effective means of reducing<br />

life-cycle costs (specifically, operating costs), but this<br />

is best achieved by reducing the demands for component<br />

cooling air - requiring even better thermal strength properties<br />

of the alloys and their coatings.<br />

Figure 1 - Convex side of a Rene 80 blade<br />

from the 1st stage HP section of a gas<br />

turbine. The orange colour represents<br />

the platinum-aluminide exterior coating.<br />

The green area has experienced hot<br />

corrosion from molten sodium sulfate.<br />

The holes in the blade are trailing edge<br />

cooling holes.<br />

Given all of this, the continued development of innovative<br />

condition monitoring and assessment methods is essential<br />

if all of these competing requirements are to be optimised.<br />

The ability to accurately detect failure, coupled with improved<br />

production and overhaul processes that facilitate<br />

component-level replacement at reduced downtime and<br />

cost, is the main driver for this development.<br />

To date (to the author’s knowledge), the <strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Australian</strong><br />

<strong>Navy</strong> has suffered no catastrophic engine failures attributable<br />

to hot corrosion. This would suggest that the GE inspection,<br />

maintenance and engine changeout regime works<br />

well: in reality, it could well be too conservative. The RAN<br />

could benefit from the future directions described above,<br />

with the possibility of extending changeout intervals even<br />

further through the use of technologically advanced condition-monitoring<br />

techniques.<br />

Figure 2 - Microstructure of<br />

a Rene 80 nickel alloy blade<br />

from the 1st stage HP section<br />

of a gas turbine. The blade<br />

suffered hot corrosion from<br />

exposure to molten sodium<br />

sulfate. The exfoliated, porous<br />

oxide scale can be seen<br />

at the top of the photograph<br />

with sulfide particles in the<br />

white layer underneath. The base metal contains unresolved brown<br />

gamma prime particles in the nickel alloy matrix. (Electrolytic<br />

Cr2O3, 400X)<br />

Figure 3 - Aluminide coating<br />

on a gas turbine 2ndstage<br />

HP nozzle showing<br />

coating blisters caused by<br />

formation of corrosion<br />

products under the coating.<br />

(SEM photograph 70X).<br />

Figure 4 - Microstructure of<br />

a Rene 80 blade from the<br />

2nd stage high-pressure<br />

section of a gas turbine that<br />

has experienced hot corrosion<br />

from molten sodium<br />

sulfate. (Kallings Etch, 200X)<br />

6 All photographs and edited narratives are reproduced (without permission) from The Hendrix Group Inc. (Houston) electronic data library (see References).<br />

48


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

References<br />

Allison Engine Company ?1996, 1996 Hercules Operations: Safety Briefing & Presentation, Rolls Royce Aerospace Group<br />

(brochure/handbook).<br />

ALSTOM Industrial Gas Turbines 1998, The Need for High Temperature Coatings in Industrial Gas Turbines, paper published<br />

at SurfaceWeb internet site (http://www.surfaceweb.com/surfaceweb/papers/coatings/gas_turbine.html).<br />

Department of Defence, Support Command Australia (<strong>Navy</strong>), Marine Gas Turbine Maintenance Management Cell ?1996,<br />

LM2500 Knowledge-Base (electronic reference document), Version 2.0, Sydney.<br />

GE Marine and Industrial Engines 1999, Technical Manual GEK 50502: LM2500 Gas Turbine System: Corrective Maintenance:<br />

Shipboard Level Maintenance, Rev. A Change 4, GE Aircraft Engines Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio.<br />

Gupta, A. K., Immarigeon, J.-P. & Patnaik, P. C. 1989, ‘A review of factors controlling the gas turbine hot section environment<br />

and their influence on hot salt corrosion test methods’, High Temperature Technology, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 173-186.<br />

Hendrix Group Inc. 2000, Corrosion and Materials Reference Library, electronic library of data and photographs available<br />

from internet (http://www.hghouston.com/photoset.html).<br />

Meetham, G. W. (ed.) 1981, The Development of Gas Turbine Materials, Applied Science Publishers Ltd, Barking, Essex, England.<br />

National Research Council, Commission on <strong>Engineering</strong> and Technical Systems, National Materials Advisory Board, Committee<br />

on Coatings for High-Temperature Structural Materials 1996, Coatings for High-Temperature Structural Material:<br />

Trends and Opportunities (Robert V. Hillery, Chair), National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Available from internet (http:/<br />

/www.nap.edu/catalog/5038.html).<br />

Patnaik, P. C. 1985, High Temperature Oxidation and Hot Corrosion of Nickel and Cobalt Based Superalloys, Aeronautical<br />

Note NAE-AN-033 (NRC-25075), National Research Council Canada, National Aeronautical Establishment, Ottawa, Ontario.<br />

Sawyer, John W. 1972, Sawyer’s Gas Turbine <strong>Engineering</strong> Handbook, vol. 1, Gas Turbine Publications Inc., Stamford, Connecticut.<br />

Van Vlack, Lawrence H. 1982, Materials for <strong>Engineering</strong>: Concepts and Applications, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company<br />

Inc., Reading, Massachusetts.<br />

About the Author<br />

LCDR Andrew Fysh joined the RAN as an undergraduate engineer<br />

in 1985. He has served in HMA Ships ADELAIDE and<br />

SUCCESS, and most recently as MEO of HMAS ANZAC. His<br />

shore postings have included the <strong>Australian</strong> Frigate Project<br />

at Williamstown, and <strong>Engineering</strong> Faculty HMAS CERBERUS<br />

as OIC Officer and Senior Sailor Training. Since 1999 he has<br />

been Platform System Manager in the Anzac Sustainment<br />

Management Office, and is completing the final year of a<br />

Master of Maintenance and Reliability <strong>Engineering</strong> degree<br />

through Monash University with a thesis entitled “Risk-Based<br />

Maintenance”. This paper was originally submitted as an<br />

assignment on hostile plant environments for the subject<br />

Machine Condition Monitoring and Fault Diagnosis.<br />

49


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

Solar Sailor<br />

Submitted by the Sydney Division of the Institution of Engineers, Australia<br />

The first Solar Sailor sailed into Sydney Harbour in June 2000<br />

and in September escorted the Olympic flame across Sydney<br />

Harbour. Solar Sailor Pty Ltd manufactured the world’s<br />

first solar and wind powered ferry at its factory in Ulladulla<br />

on the NSW South Coast.<br />

Solar Sailor was built in partnership with the NSW and Commonwealth<br />

Governments and private sector supporters.<br />

Twenty jobs were created during its design and construction.<br />

With worldwide interest, orders for further vessels are<br />

expected to follow. Total investment in this initiative has<br />

been $3.3 million.<br />

Pictures courtesy of Dr Robert Dane<br />

Solar Sailor features mounted wings which harness the sun<br />

and the wind and can be adjusted to adapt to the prevailing<br />

weather conditions at any time. Solar Sailor produces<br />

no water pollution, low wash, minimal noise and low fumes,<br />

thereby allowing operators to access the world’s most environmentally<br />

sensitive waterways previously off-limits to<br />

traditional craft.<br />

Solar Sailor features four sources of power: solar, wind, battery<br />

and a back up liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) generator.<br />

These can be used individually or in combination to<br />

maximise the reliability of the vessel in all conditions.<br />

When loaded with 100 passengers, the Solar Sailor will reach<br />

service speeds of 5 knots on solar power alone.<br />

50


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

Maintaining Proficiency Levels in<br />

<strong>Engineering</strong><br />

By LEUT S.E. Christie-Johnson, RAN<br />

Just like any industry, the <strong>Navy</strong> employs people to do a specific<br />

job. In order for that person to carry out that task they<br />

require appropriate training and continual consolidation of<br />

it. The <strong>Navy</strong> is currently developing a good training regime,<br />

however the skills learnt are often not put into practice. This<br />

has two effects. It limits the ship’s ability to repair defects<br />

away from port and it hinders the personal development of<br />

the sailor. This last point is an important consideration as it<br />

is major reason sailors are leaving the <strong>Navy</strong>. On the job consolidation<br />

of training is largely a ship’s responsibility and<br />

maintenance managers must ensure that ship’s staff completes<br />

some major jobs.<br />

The <strong>Navy</strong> has adopted the TTP training and accreditation<br />

system. This has the advantage of enabling a qualification<br />

to be tailored to what the <strong>Navy</strong> requires. The sailor therefor<br />

only learns skills that he is likely to use in the <strong>Navy</strong>, but at<br />

the same time is given a certificate that is recognised in the<br />

civilian environment. As the sailor advances he or she is<br />

given further training as their position warrants. It is on<br />

the onus of the sailor to obtain other qualifications they<br />

desire for outside employment or for personal development.<br />

However the sailor has the opportunity to receive funding<br />

under SVET or DFASS to do this. The accredited training<br />

scheme is complimented by <strong>Navy</strong> specific training in the<br />

form of AMOCs, MWCs and ERWCs. These are designed to<br />

give the sailor the operating knowledge of naval equipment<br />

and an understanding on Naval engineering practice. Using<br />

this training, a ship should have diesel mechanics qualified<br />

to work on Naval diesels, fridge maintainers capable<br />

of repairing fridges and air conditioners, and electricians<br />

with an understanding of ship’s wiring.<br />

This impacts on the ship when it is at sea and away from its<br />

support base of contractors. If a critical system fails, the<br />

ship suddenly finds that there is insufficient knowledge<br />

onboard to effect a repair or develop a work around. The<br />

ship may find itself in the position of not being able to remain<br />

on station because nobody knows how to fix the<br />

fridge. All ship’s continually practice ECCDs, to ensure engineering<br />

staff can prevent a main engine fault damaging<br />

further equipment or causing injury. Consequently the<br />

ability of on watch personnel to carry out emergency procedures<br />

on running machinery is good. However the ability<br />

to repair an engine after a casualty is not necessarily<br />

available. The <strong>Navy</strong> puts considerable effort into ECCDs,<br />

but not into repair. Engineers are becoming operators rather<br />

than operator maintainers.<br />

The philosophy of contracting out all work is large reason<br />

personnel are discharging. Sailors want to continually develop<br />

their skills and are not being given the chance to do<br />

so. Consequently they look for an employer who will give<br />

them this opportunity. A person who requests to do a fridge<br />

and air conditioning course wants to work on fridges. If a<br />

contractor is given all the maintenance work on it then the<br />

sailor is left wondering why he was trained in the first place.<br />

In the past, consolidation of training has been a major function<br />

of the FIMA organisation. With the current deficiency<br />

in manning levels, FIMA is only able to undertake a fraction<br />

of the workload it used to. Consolidation is therefor up to<br />

the individual ships. This is difficult with manning levels<br />

extending to ships and leave periods allocated during maintenance<br />

periods. However if ships want the capability to<br />

repair themselves, then they must develop it in house.<br />

Training however requires on the job work, to fully develop<br />

the skills obtained. If the sailor is not given the opportunity<br />

to use their training, then it is forgotten. The <strong>Navy</strong> invests<br />

considerably in time, money and effort to develop training<br />

programs, only for a large portion of that investment to be<br />

lost when the sailor goes to sea. A large reason this is occurring<br />

is that most maintenance is being given to civilian<br />

contractors. There is currently an attitude that if a defect<br />

or large planned maintenance routine arises, then a TM200<br />

is automatically raised without considering wether ship’s<br />

staff can do it.<br />

Operation and maintenance of equipment is the major reason<br />

why engineering sailors are sent to sea. It is important<br />

that the ship be capable of operating as well as maintaining<br />

equipment, as contractors are not on call in the middle<br />

of the Pacific Ocean. Sailors have the training to do the<br />

work, but they need the opportunity to keep their skills<br />

current. This is up to the ship to provide. Unfortunately<br />

with the number of people who have already left the <strong>Navy</strong>,<br />

the number of personnel remaining who have deep maintenance<br />

skills is limited. The longer this issue is put off the<br />

worse the <strong>Navy</strong>’s position becomes.<br />

51


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

Warfare Division NBCD Cell in Maritime<br />

Headquarters<br />

By CPO Vic YOUNG<br />

Warfare Division (WD) is responsible to the Maritime Commander<br />

(MC) for developing and providing advice on warfare<br />

doctrine, concepts for operations, operational policy and<br />

initiating and sponsoring minor projects in close consultation<br />

with the primary customer (Maritime Command) and<br />

the ultimate principle customers (RAN Fleet Units). In particular<br />

WD has the responsibility to enhance operational<br />

readiness safety and combat survivability so that the units<br />

can safely train and survive against any threat. Major business<br />

activities involve determining where change or improvement<br />

is required through liaison, negotiation and<br />

bench marking. Perhaps the most important function of<br />

every desk officer is to develop operational policy of which<br />

there are two principal aspects:<br />

• Review of existing policy (<strong>Australian</strong> Books of References<br />

(ABRs), Defence Instructions (<strong>Navy</strong>) (DI-N),<br />

<strong>Australian</strong> Defence Force Publications (ADFPs) etc,<br />

and<br />

• Formulation of new policy.<br />

The Nuclear, Biological & Chemical Defence (NBCD) Cell is<br />

specifically responsible for and sponsor the RAN NBCD<br />

Manual, <strong>Australian</strong> Book of Reference (ABR) 5476, Volumes<br />

1-5. The cell has a staff of four with each specialist desk<br />

having responsibility for a number of specific documents.<br />

The members are:<br />

• Staff Officer NBCD: LCDR Garry Prince,<br />

(02) 9359 3278<br />

• Assistant Staff Officer NBCD: LEUT Ron Rowe,<br />

(02) 9359 3279<br />

• Assistant Staff Officer Firefighting: CPO Vic Young<br />

(02) 9359 3280, and<br />

• Assistant Staff Officer Firefighting2: PO Peter<br />

Armour (02) 9359 6139<br />

The following is a brief summary of the projects currently<br />

being undertaken by the cell:<br />

• Thermal Imaging Camera (TIC) - This project was developed<br />

to identify a replacement TIC for the EVA<br />

and Argus devices, which have various shortcomings<br />

as highlighted by the HMAS WESTRALIA Board<br />

of Inquiry. Present distribution of equipment is being<br />

held in abeyance due to limited stock and due to<br />

the impact of defective items having had on available<br />

spares. Distribution will be ongoing when items,<br />

being repaired under warranty, are returned from<br />

manufacturer. Fleet units have been informed of the<br />

issue procedure.<br />

• Fire Boundary Thermometers - This project seeks<br />

to procure fire boundary thermometers for accurate<br />

temperature mapping of enclosed compartments<br />

during main machinery fires. Trials conducted at<br />

the RAN Sea Safety & Survival School (SSSS) Training<br />

Facility EAST (HMAS CRESWELL) have identified<br />

a suitable unit.<br />

• P250 Pump Replacement - The problems with the<br />

troublesome P250 pump are acknowledged and WD<br />

has reviewed the replacement-required specifications.<br />

Specifications include electric start diesel engine,<br />

self-priming, wheeled cradle and must not<br />

weigh more than 200kg. A number of companies<br />

have responded to requirements and trials are being<br />

conducted at RANSSSS.<br />

• Hands Free Lighting and Helmets - A recent incident<br />

where molten aluminium from a deckhead fell onto<br />

the shoulders of a firefighter clearly highlights the<br />

requirement for personal head protection. As there<br />

is currently no provision made for head protection<br />

and personnel are forced to carry bulky lanterns to<br />

and from the scenes of damage, a project has been<br />

started for the procurement of both Firefighting and<br />

Damage Control Helmets fitted with torchlight.<br />

In addition to the above, WD has also developed the following<br />

Naval Equipment Proposals:<br />

Breathing Apparatus (BA) Replacement - Following on from<br />

the WESTRALIA’s fire Board of Inquiry recommendations<br />

(replace BAs with fewer handwheels and lighter), WD is<br />

currently taking steps to provide a replacement for the Open<br />

Circuit Compressed Air Breathing Apparatus (OCCABA).<br />

Industry response has been sought and a number of solutions<br />

are available but as an interim the present OCCABA<br />

will soon incorporate carbon fibre cylinders, redesigned<br />

manifold and newer mask.<br />

52


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

Immediate Use Emergency Escape Device - The Fleet NBCD<br />

Officer has highlighted Occupational Health & Safety<br />

(OH&S) concerns with the Emergency Life Safety Respirator<br />

Device (ELSRD) from Damage Control (DC) Rovers who<br />

are required to carry it for the duration of a DC incident.<br />

Consequently the Shipsafe Board directed that WD identify<br />

a suitable replacement personal escape device. This has<br />

resulted in an Invitation to Register Interest (ITR) to be released<br />

to industry and WD expects to go to trial by early<br />

May 01.<br />

Breathing Apparatus Communications Device - In combination<br />

with the BA replacement, suitable communications<br />

devices are being sought. These items will be either an individual<br />

attached device or more likely incorporated into<br />

the BA. RANSSSS has recently trialed re-configured Bone<br />

Microphones, with favourable results however, this is being<br />

held in abeyance until supportability issues are resolved<br />

with the Maxon radio.<br />

Portable Gas Detection Equipment (PGDE) - Due to deficiencies<br />

of the current in-service GX91 and HS91A PGDEs,<br />

age, cost, and recent advances in technology, WD has initiated<br />

a trial on alternatives. Four manufacturing companies<br />

have been identified and are requested to supply the RAN<br />

with a sample kit for a proposed trial.<br />

About the Author<br />

As a Recruit AVN CPO Young joined HMAS CERBERUS on<br />

the 22 Jul 1980, and his first sea posting was to HMAS MEL-<br />

BOURNE on the 11 Jan 1981, where he remained until October<br />

1983. A posting to the <strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Australian</strong> <strong>Navy</strong> Sailing Association,<br />

at Rushcutters Bay was followed by a further posting to<br />

HMAS PENGUIN; as an ambulance driver. A promotion and<br />

posting to HMAS CERBERUS Fire Section in 1987, coincided<br />

with the Seamanship Category Rationalisation Survey (SCRS)<br />

which presented him with the opportunity to change career.<br />

After completing the RAN Basic Firefighter’s course, in 1990,<br />

he volunteered for a posting to HMAS WATERHEN. In 1992<br />

another promotion saw him back at CERBERUS, as an instructor<br />

at the School of Survivability and Ships Safety, and<br />

while there he was nominated for Exercise Longlook; on exchange<br />

to the <strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Navy</strong>. In 1995 he was the Airmovements<br />

Officer at HMAS ALBATROSS. Post SCRS saw another career<br />

change, and as a newly trained Petty Officer Boatswains Mate,<br />

he was posted to HMAS NEWCASTLE where he spent twelve<br />

months consolidating his newly acquired skills. In 1998 he<br />

was posted to Maritime Headquarters Warfare Division (WD)<br />

as the Assistant Staff Officer Fire Fighting (ASOFF) and was<br />

subsequently promoted.<br />

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for FM200/NAFS3 By-<br />

Products - The Shipsafe Board has previously directed WD<br />

to identify and investigate suitable PPE for use in a toxic<br />

vapour environment. The identification of a suitable suit is<br />

complete and will be trialed by the Fleet NBCD Officer.<br />

Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for its use will be<br />

developed in progression of the trial.<br />

Standardisation of Fleet Firefighting Equipment and Fittings<br />

- A standardisation program of all Major Fleets Unit’s (MFU)<br />

fire nozzles, hoses and couplings is in progress. Consequential,<br />

the Fleet will be fitted with STORTZ fittings and couplings<br />

and ELKHART nozzles.<br />

Electric Powered DC Fans - With the introduction of water<br />

powered fans, and the Red-Devil type fans being made obsolete,<br />

a requirement for an electric fan has arisen. This is<br />

due to that suitable firemain may not always be available.<br />

An alternative has been identified and a technical investigation<br />

is being conducted on suitability.<br />

Standardised Emergency Escape Signs - A WD investigation<br />

has identified that ships have local purchased emergency<br />

escape signs, which are of varying configuration. This<br />

is despite guidance contained within ABR 5476 Vol 1. WD<br />

has proposed to adopt a standard ‘photoluminescent’ sign<br />

that complies more closely with the Safety of Life at Sea<br />

(SOLAS) regulations.<br />

53


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

Air Conditioning & Ventilation<br />

Systems on Surface Ships<br />

By F.J.P. GLAVIMANS 1 B. Eng ( Mech ) GradDip Elec M AIRAH NPER-3 MIE Aust CP Eng<br />

Abstract<br />

The aim of this paper is to convey the principle differences that would be encountered when designing HVAC systems for<br />

ships. This encompasses the different strategic imperatives that have to be considered as well as the operating environment<br />

and the resultant consequences for HVAC design. The strategic imperatives relate to reducing size, weight and<br />

volume as well as noise within the confines of safety requirements set by Classification Societies and International conventions<br />

such as the, “Safety of Life at Sea” convention (SOLAS). These have to be coupled with environmental requirements<br />

that are common to all seagoing transport, which not only include temperature and the corrosive environment but<br />

also include elements relating to the movement of the ship.<br />

Introduction<br />

Over the last few large cruise liners in the range of 70.000<br />

to 100,000 tons have become commonplace. This means<br />

that one single ship can have 50,000 to 70,000 square meters<br />

of air conditioned accommodation area and that some<br />

3,500 to 4,000 people will need to be supplied with adequately<br />

air conditioned spaces. These systems are of great<br />

importance in the economic viability of these ships.<br />

The Systems<br />

The primary function of marine heating, ventilation, and<br />

air conditioning (HVAC) systems is to provide comfort and<br />

healthy conditions for the crew and passengers and to<br />

maintain satisfactory operation of equipment ie. keep temperatures<br />

within the equipment’s operational limits, and<br />

prevent spoilage of perishables/garbage by maintaining<br />

storage temperatures within desirable limits.<br />

Naturally as in buildings there are a wide variety of approaches<br />

to air conditioning, ventilation design and installation<br />

depending on the country of build, the ship type, size<br />

and usage and any ventilation requirements/standards that<br />

are regarded as applicable when the design is undertaken.<br />

Firstly in the ship building industry there are a number of<br />

classification societies the best known of which from an<br />

English language viewpoint is the first however examples<br />

of others are as follows:<br />

• Lloyd’s Register of Shipping-UK<br />

• Det Norske Veritas-Norway<br />

• Germanisher Lloyd-Germany<br />

• Bureau Veritas - France<br />

• American Bureau of Shipping<br />

These generally set minimum requirements for ship design<br />

and construction in relation to safety issues, which includes<br />

ventilation and/or fresh air requirements and other requirements<br />

which impact on the design strategies for ships air<br />

conditioning and ventilation systems. Ship builders/owners<br />

want/need to comply with these requirements in order<br />

to obtain insurance.<br />

In addition each country also has its own peculiar regulations<br />

which in Australia are set and regulated by the <strong>Australian</strong><br />

Maritime Safety Authority. These regulations in<br />

Australia incorporate the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) convention.<br />

The SOLAS convention is an International convention,<br />

which is published by the International Maritime<br />

Organisation.<br />

Whilst basically the problem of air conditioning on board a<br />

ship is similar to that of a hotel or block of flats the main<br />

difference being that a building is stationary and the climatic<br />

changes are seasonal. A ship however encounters<br />

rapid changes of climate as may be appreciated in its journeys<br />

from temperate to tropical zones. These changes may<br />

occur within a matter of hours.<br />

In addition, a marine installation does not only deal with<br />

rapid fluctuations in ambient conditions but there also exists<br />

a considerable heat load emanating from the main pro-<br />

1 F. Glavimans is the Technology Manager / HVAC in Directorate Naval Platform Systems.<br />

54


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

pulsion unit. Maintenance of habitable conditions within<br />

machinery spaces is not addressed in this paper. However<br />

the heat leakage from these spaces cannot be ignored in<br />

designing air conditioning systems.<br />

Also the quantity of fresh air required for various spaces<br />

however typically it is not necessary to have as much fresh<br />

air as is required in buildings this is due to several factors:<br />

• A ship is moving generally in an unpolluted environment,<br />

which is not the case for a city, or urban<br />

environment.<br />

• Flushing the stale air takes place in a ship by opening<br />

external doors as the ship is generally moving<br />

not stationary creating typically areas of low pressure<br />

down the sides of the ship.<br />

The type and scale of air quality problems encountered on<br />

ships is dependent upon the type of vessel, age of vessel<br />

areas of operation; period and density of passenger occupation;<br />

heating type, design and maintenance. However at<br />

the end of the day as in any HVAC system, filter efficiency<br />

and ductwork cleanliness at any point in time are the key<br />

factors in determining indoor air quality.<br />

The other problems that must be considered in the design<br />

of air conditioning in ships are listed below. Whilst this list<br />

is not exhaustive and it does not list these problems in order<br />

of importance. These problems which should not be<br />

overlooked or ignored are never the less more peculiar to<br />

the design of air conditioning systems in ships:<br />

• The air conditioning equipment should function<br />

properly under all conditions of roll and pitch. In<br />

more precise terms this can translate into the following<br />

conditions according to American Society of<br />

Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers<br />

(ASHRAE);<br />

- Dynamic Conditions. Machinery shall withstand<br />

a 22.5-degree roll (each side) for a full ten second<br />

period and a 7.5-degree pitch (bow up to bow<br />

down) for a full 10-second period.<br />

- Static Conditions. Machinery shall withstand a 15-<br />

degree list (either side) and a 5-degree trim (by<br />

bow or stern).<br />

- External Forces and Deflections. Provision shall<br />

be made to ensure that all machinery components<br />

be secured to their foundations (not merely<br />

resting on them) in such a manner that in an<br />

emergency condition of list or trim, no machinery,<br />

component or spare part shall break loose<br />

from its foundation or stowage space.<br />

• Servicing ships en route cannot be easily undertaken<br />

therefore stand by capacity may be required/desired<br />

in critical components of the system.<br />

• Weight of the air conditioning equipment has to be<br />

kept to a minimum as with any equipment fitted to<br />

transport vehicles eg. cars and planes.<br />

• Ships air conditioning control systems should be<br />

flexible enough to compensate for rapid climatic<br />

changes without the attention of ship personnel.<br />

• Shock resistance is required as ships can be subject<br />

to such forces when being manoeuvred in harbour.<br />

• Corrosion rates due to seawater and salt laden air<br />

increase in the shipboard environment therefore<br />

materials of construction have to be carefully selected.<br />

• Installation space requirements should be kept to a<br />

minimum without affecting cost and reliability.<br />

• Noise generation or vibration in air conditioning systems<br />

has to be kept to a minimum due to consequent<br />

effect on passengers and crew. This is more important<br />

in naval vessels where the ability to reduce detection<br />

may be vital to success.<br />

• Watertight bulkheads require any air conditioning<br />

ductwork passing through them to be also watertight.<br />

• Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) and Electromagnetic<br />

Interference (EMI) Requirements relating<br />

to interference with or from radio/radar interception<br />

and broadcast as with aircraft are a particularly<br />

important item that cannot be overlooked in the<br />

shipboard environment.<br />

• Machinery maintenance requirements have to be<br />

clearly understood, as it is difficult to change compartments<br />

if there is insufficient room for maintenance<br />

access or activities such as removing tubes<br />

from a heat exchanger.<br />

• Configuration requirements typically entail as in<br />

buildings that compartments for the housing of air<br />

conditioning and ventilation equipment shall be so<br />

configured to occupy a minimum of vessel space<br />

commensurate with cost and reliability. Also foundations<br />

are to be arranged so that when a component<br />

of a piece of machinery is removed the<br />

remaining major components will be self-supporting.<br />

Also the major dimension of machinery shall be<br />

aligned with the longitudinal axis of the ship ie. fore<br />

and aft. Refrigerant circuit design shall ensure satisfactory<br />

performance regardless of vessel trim and<br />

motion.<br />

• Refrigeration leak detection is required in all spaces<br />

where refrigerant gases are present.<br />

55


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

Compliance with Montreal<br />

Protocols<br />

There are typically between 150 and 300 kg of Cfc’s or<br />

HCFC’s banked in a typical ship’s air conditioning and provision<br />

plants.<br />

It is estimated that 80% of the world’s shipping fleet uses<br />

HCFC-based refrigerants, like R22, for primary air conditioning,<br />

provisions, storage, and cargo cooling (food products<br />

such as fish). It is anticipated that most existing ships<br />

will continue to operate R22 systems. However ships owners<br />

and operators will have to bear in mind that the reduction<br />

in manufacture of HCFC’s by 35% is to have taken place<br />

on a global scale by 2004.<br />

The Montreal Protocol requires the complete phase out of<br />

HCFC’s by 2030.<br />

Thus replacements for R22 generally at the moment consist<br />

of blends which constitute R134a, as one of the blends<br />

however there is no clear preferred alternative at this point<br />

in time.<br />

Typical Compartments to be<br />

Air Conditioned or Ventilated<br />

Compartments generally air conditioned on a ship consist<br />

of staterooms/cabins, lounges, recreation spaces, mess and<br />

dining rooms, offices, vital electronic equipment compartments,<br />

chart rooms, hospital or sick compartments, bridge<br />

or wheelhouse.<br />

Other compartments generally have ventilation requirements<br />

depending on usage but are typically not air-conditioned.<br />

Ventilation of the remaining compartments serves<br />

two purposes as follows:<br />

• Removal of heat.<br />

• Removal of odours or dangerous gases.<br />

Naturally as in air-conditioned compartments there have<br />

to be limits on the air change rate per hour due to the small<br />

compartment volumes.<br />

Design Criteria<br />

The design criteria for ships depend on the area of service<br />

that is envisaged; in general they are as follows:<br />

Cooling Cycle Outdoor Ambient<br />

Temperatures<br />

• North Atlantic; 350C Dry Bulb & 25.50C Wet Bulb.<br />

• Semi-Tropical; 350C Dry Bulb & 26.50C Wet Bulb.<br />

• Tropical; 350C Dry Bulb & 280C Wet Bulb.<br />

Heating Cycle Outdoor Ambient<br />

Temperatures<br />

• -180C Dry Bulb unless vessel will always operate in<br />

high temperature climates.<br />

Seawater Temperature (as this is the<br />

heat sink)<br />

• 300C in Summer & -20C in Winter. Although<br />

seawater temperatures can be hotter in various<br />

equatorial parts of the world.<br />

Compartment Temperatures<br />

• Inside design temperatures range from 24.50C Dry<br />

Bulb & 26.50C Wet Bulb with 50% relative humidity<br />

in Summer and from 180C Dry Bulb to 240C Dry Bulb<br />

in Winter.<br />

Thermal Comfort<br />

From a review undertaken by Lloyd’s Register it would appear<br />

that typically air conditioning temperatures on board<br />

ship are set lower than necessary due to high metabolic<br />

“overheating” resulting from high occupancy rates.<br />

Fresh Air Requirements<br />

Fresh air ventilation could meet such standards as deemed<br />

appropriate in the Flag State or alternatively a recognised<br />

standard such as ASHRAE Standard 62 or other standards<br />

such as ISO 7547 which relates specifically to ventilation<br />

for passenger accommodation onboard ships.<br />

Loyd’s Register have compiled guidelines that suggest the<br />

following ranges:<br />

• Dining rooms and bar areas 10 l/s to 15 l/s per person.<br />

• Cabins 8 l/s per person.<br />

• Smoking lounge 30 l/s per person.<br />

Therefore varying outside air provisions are a possibility that<br />

depends of course to some extent on the size and proposed<br />

role of the ship and more particularly depending on the<br />

compartment usage.<br />

56


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

Air Conditioning Load<br />

Determination<br />

Load determination is dependent on the typical factors<br />

experienced in buildings however the following considerations<br />

are peculiar to the design of air conditioning systems<br />

on ships:<br />

• Heat gain from piping, machinery and equipment.<br />

• Sun load must be considered on all exposed surfaces<br />

above the waterline. If a compartment has more<br />

than one exposed surface, the surface with the greatest<br />

sun load is used and the other exposed boundary<br />

is calculated at outside ambient temperature.<br />

• It must also be borne in mind that unlike buildings<br />

where occupants come and go and as a result lighting/equipment<br />

is turned off and on, which results<br />

in a diversity factor when determining peak total<br />

cooling loads. This may not be as appropriate in ships<br />

where the people cannot leave and lighting/equipment<br />

is typically left turned on.<br />

• Infiltration through weather doors ie. doors that open<br />

to external walkways or decks is considered negligible<br />

however they may require an assumed infiltration<br />

load for heating steering gear rooms and air<br />

conditioning the bridge. As there are minimal windows<br />

or those that exist are watertight, infiltration is<br />

also regarded as being minimal.<br />

• When calculating winter heating loads, heat transmission<br />

through boundaries of machinery spaces in<br />

either direction is not considered.<br />

• For merchant ships, the cooling coil leaving air temperature<br />

is assumed to be 90C Dry Bulb and the Wet<br />

Bulb temperature is consistent with 95% relative<br />

humidity. This may be changed in summer if humidity<br />

control is deemed necessary.<br />

• The overall heat transfer coefficients for the composite<br />

structures common to ship construction do<br />

not lend themselves to theoretical derivation they<br />

are most commonly obtained from full-scale panel<br />

tests.<br />

• Heat dissipation from people typically depends on<br />

their activity levels and the ambient dry bulb temperature<br />

however values that can be used from<br />

ASHRAE are quoted in Table 1 as follows;<br />

Table 1. Heat Gain from Occupants in Watts<br />

Activity at 270C Sensible Latent Total<br />

Eating 64 97 161<br />

Moderate Activity 59 73 132<br />

Light Activity 57 60 117<br />

Workshops 73 149 222<br />

Table 2. HMAS IPSWICH and WHYALLA Temperature Comparison<br />

57


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

Painting systems can also play an important part in the heat<br />

transmission as per the following case study however this<br />

is generally not a significant percentage of the total air conditioning<br />

load for larger ships.<br />

DSTO undertook a study comparing HMAS Ipswich was<br />

chosen for comparison with HMAS Whyalla as both ships<br />

have similar paint systems differing only in the topcoat<br />

application. Whyalla has a low gloss NIR reflecting Haze<br />

Grey polyurethane on all surfaces above the waterline, including<br />

a non-skid application on the decks. Ipswich has<br />

the current high gloss Storm Grey topcoat on surfaces above<br />

the waterline except the decks that are coated with the RAN<br />

dark grey Pewter non-skid coating. As both ships were<br />

painted in late 1996, it provides an excellent opportunity to<br />

compare paints of similar condition. The following table<br />

demonstrated the significant temperature difference.<br />

Air Conditioning System<br />

Components<br />

It is desirable as with any air conditioning system to group<br />

together those compartments having similar air conditioning<br />

or ventilation requirements.<br />

As in a building each ship has fire zones through which it is<br />

not desirable to penetrate ducting. Also ships have watertight<br />

bulkheads which it is also not desirable to penetrate<br />

ducting.<br />

As mentioned previously there is a desire to save weight<br />

and volume in the selection of equipment so when combined<br />

with the previously stated requirement generally results<br />

in piping delivering chilled water and /or steam to<br />

various strategically placed fan/coil units. These then provide<br />

air conditioning via direct supply to the compartment<br />

or via ducting to several compartments using the passageways<br />

and stairwells as return air paths.<br />

The other option is to install reverse cycle refrigerative plant<br />

for air conditioning on smaller ships or dedicated smaller<br />

compartments provided there is a suitable place to put the<br />

condensers.<br />

In general however equipment used for ships should be<br />

considerably more rugged than equipment for land applications,<br />

as highlighted previously it has to withstand a more<br />

aggressive environment which is both more corrosive and<br />

subject to shock loads. The shipbuilder, system designers<br />

and the owners of course determine this degree of<br />

ruggedisation.<br />

Air Distribution<br />

Good air distribution can be difficult because of low ceiling<br />

heights and generally compact space arrangements. To<br />

overcome such difficulties mock-ups or computational fluid<br />

dynamics techniques can be employed to determine design<br />

criteria for the location of ceiling diffusers. Naturally<br />

there is a need to minimise drafts and noise. There is also<br />

the possibility of condensation when the temperature difference<br />

between the initial space temperature and the discharge<br />

air temperature is too great.<br />

Air distribution can also be undertaken by the use of an<br />

induction system however these systems have experienced<br />

operational difficulties and have not been as successful.<br />

Air is typically returned via sight proof louvres in a doorway<br />

to the passageway.<br />

Duct is either manufactured from galvanised steel sheet or<br />

aluminium or for larger ducting for ventilation of engine<br />

rooms etc it is steel sheet.<br />

Air Quality in Ships<br />

There is a significant body of experience relating to air quality<br />

problems encountered in the land based environment<br />

due to air conditioning however on board ships the problems<br />

can also be widely variable depending on the:<br />

• Type of vessel;<br />

• Age of vessel;<br />

• Area of operation - climate, ambient air quality etc;<br />

• Period and density of passenger occupation;<br />

• System design and maintenance.<br />

Generally pollutants are more limited on board ships as<br />

stated previously. Lloyd’s register undertook a survey on<br />

board ships, which attempted to identify air quality problems.<br />

Carbon dioxide concentrations which can be used as a<br />

measurement of ventilation efficiency indicated that whilst<br />

there were high levels these were generally only peaks and<br />

overall ventilation efficiency was satisfactory<br />

Volatile organic compound levels were found to be comparatively<br />

low on board ships as compared to homes and<br />

offices.<br />

Particulate measurements were found to be particularly<br />

high compared to homes and offices however this may have<br />

been due to higher airflows causing re-suspensions of<br />

particulate matter.<br />

58


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

Microbial contamination was found to be high on board<br />

ships due to proliferation of moulds and fungi. This mould<br />

typically appears in the form of black to brown deposits,<br />

which line the walls of the ducting where there is a source<br />

of water due to condensation etc. These moulds and fungi<br />

generally appear to gain entry through poorly fitted and<br />

or maintained filtration systems.<br />

Bacteria are not a problem due to the sterilising effect of<br />

salt laden atmosphere. They are generally only a problem<br />

if the occupants are unhygienic in their behaviour.<br />

Power Consumption<br />

HVAC plant is the largest consumer of electrical energy on<br />

passenger ships with the cooling machinery being the largest<br />

component of the system. The cooling machinery therefore<br />

has an indirect bearing on operational cost but also a<br />

direct bearing on the capital cost of a passenger ship. These<br />

ratios are naturally not so great for other typical types of<br />

surface ships however they can be also high for naval vessels<br />

where the people load is not so high but the electronic<br />

equipment is a major proportion of the cooling load.<br />

Conclusion<br />

As for buildings, ship air conditioning and ventilation systems<br />

are an important component of the overall success of<br />

the ship and therefore it is essential that design strategies<br />

address those requirements peculiar to the shipboard environment<br />

as outlined in this paper.<br />

References & Bibliography<br />

Books and Handbooks<br />

ASHRAE 1995. ASHRAE Handbook - 1995 HVAC Applications, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning<br />

Engineers.<br />

The Institute of Marine Engineers, Conference Proceedings on Marine Refrigeration Volume 107,No 3, Aden Press Limited,<br />

Oxford, (1995).<br />

SNAME 1980. Recommended Practices for Merchant Ship Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Design Calculations.<br />

Technical and Research Bulletin No. 4-16. Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Jersey City, NJ.<br />

USN. 1991. Heating, ventilation and air conditioning design criteria manual for surface ships of the United States <strong>Navy</strong>, Washington,<br />

D.C.<br />

USN. 1988. NAVSEA Design Practices and Criteria Manual for Air Conditioning, Ventilation and Heating of Surface Ships,<br />

Chapter 510, Washington, D.C.<br />

Journal Articles and Papers<br />

Lloyd’s Register by A.D.Webster, “The contribution of ventilation system design and maintenance to air quality on passenger<br />

ships” Transactions Institute of Marine Engineers, Volume 109 Part 2,1997.<br />

J.K.W. MacVicar & S.T. Fairweather, “Marine Air Conditioning some aspects of Modern Installations.” Technical Ships Association<br />

- Oslo, 1956.<br />

W.Hoskins & L.Wake, MPD AMRL DSTO “Temperature Comparisons of Fremantle Class Patrol Boats Painted with NIR<br />

Reflecting and Conventional Paint Schemes.<br />

Standards<br />

ANSI/ASHRAE STANDARD: ANSI/ASHRAE 26-1996, Mechanical Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Installations Aboard<br />

Ships.<br />

ANSI/ASHRAE STANDARD: ANSI/ASHRAE 62-1989, Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. (Spilt into two parts SSPC<br />

62.1 & SSPC 62.2)<br />

59


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

History of Maintenance in the RAN<br />

By LCDR Alan Legge, RAN<br />

Abstract<br />

The move from a rigid calendar or “hours run” preventative maintenance system to a more flexible condition based<br />

maintenance or predictive maintenance system for all maintenance activities in the RAN can no longer be ignored.<br />

This article discusses the history of maintenance management in the RAN and the problems, which lends itself to a shift<br />

in the time based maintenance paradigm. The difficulties in achieving it technically, and the lack of the necessary delegation<br />

of responsibility, will require the setting up of a committee and the establishment of a series of trials to determine:<br />

• the most effective maintenance techniques and procedures,<br />

• to confirm that a machines behaviour can be predicted with sufficient accuracy to enable it to be maintained on<br />

condition, and<br />

• to establish a maintenance database.<br />

Even when condition monitoring is proved to be effective it might not be cost effective to use in a warship environment. A<br />

follow on article, to be published in future NEB, discusses the factors affecting the cost effectiveness of condition based<br />

maintenance and condition monitoring in the RAN and attempts to predict those areas which will show the most savings.<br />

Introduction<br />

The subject of condition based maintenance is one which<br />

is receiving a great deal of attention throughout all branches<br />

of engineering in the RAN. Headquarters sees it as offering<br />

significant savings in manpower and maintenance costs.<br />

This interest at high level has at last led to the establishment<br />

of a condition-based maintenance and conditionmonitoring<br />

cell within Maritime Command. This cell is the<br />

focal point for condition based maintenance and the choice<br />

and development of condition monitoring techniques<br />

throughout the sea systems controllerate. However, this<br />

article concentrates solely on the marine engineering aspects.<br />

In all areas of marine engineering design techniques for<br />

condition monitoring, and its close relation engine health<br />

monitoring, are under active development. Such is the<br />

speed of progress and the concentration of effort that the<br />

combined paper, written some six months before its presentation,<br />

is only to indicate those areas in which research is<br />

under-way.<br />

This article chronicles the history of maintenance management<br />

in the RAN and describes the development of condition<br />

based maintenance policy and the use of condition<br />

monitoring techniques to the present day.<br />

History of Maintenance<br />

Management within the RAN<br />

In the earlier years when the <strong>Navy</strong>’s marine propulsion<br />

equipment was large, simple, manpower-intensive, contained<br />

massive redundancy, and, by today’s standards,<br />

hardly used, there was little need for a maintenance management<br />

system. Maintenance planning was principally<br />

at the whim of the section senior sailor. He generally had<br />

an extensive and intimate knowledge of his machinery,<br />

workshop equipment, facilities, skill (either his own or available<br />

to him) to manufacture replacement parts, together<br />

with the men to repair it should he fail to correctly assess<br />

its condition. Time was readily available and the downtime<br />

afforded by the frequent necessity to shut down and clean<br />

boilers allowed an element of what we now call preventative<br />

maintenance to be carried out. The Second World War<br />

led to rapid expansion (with a subsequent dilution of skill<br />

levels), expertise and experience, and increased usage (with<br />

a reduction of time available for maintenance and the need<br />

for increased availability and reliability). Some of the short-<br />

60


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

comings caused by this were solved by the introduction,<br />

principally by the United States <strong>Navy</strong> (USN). The USN produced<br />

a paper based maintenance system, which required<br />

the semi-trained maintainer to religiously follow a set of<br />

instructions, mainly for what we would call today “servicing”,<br />

but also for some longer term maintenance routines.<br />

After the war, with the increasing complexity of marine<br />

propulsion equipment, this process recommended itself for<br />

development into a true maintenance system. The British<br />

<strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Navy</strong> (RN) pioneered this approach and the planned<br />

maintenance system was born. It was introduced fleet wide<br />

in 1953. It was based on the operational cycle of the ship<br />

(refit to refit) and consisted of a card based system in which<br />

maintenance routines were specified to be carried out at<br />

by three month intervals and planned by class of ship under<br />

the control of shore based Class Authorities. Generally<br />

the system was a success not least in that it allowed operating<br />

authorities to be aware of the mechanical state of their<br />

ships for the first time. The <strong>Navy</strong> was considered to lead<br />

the world in design and operation of preventative maintenance<br />

management systems.<br />

There were, however, drawbacks. No instructions as to job<br />

content were available, nor was, a simple and effective planning<br />

procedure. Further, the tendency was to err on the<br />

side of caution, over-maintenance was considered acceptable<br />

in the search for increased reliability, and hence availability,<br />

and the system was very manpower intensive.<br />

Indeed, the introduction of a formal system, with a requirement<br />

for a disciplined approach to maintenance, actually<br />

led to an increase in workload and manpower requirements.<br />

This necessitated the introduction of fleet maintenance<br />

units to undertake the work that the hard-pressed ship’s<br />

staffs of frigates, destroyers and small ships could not manage.<br />

Availability could not be shown to have increased noticeably<br />

- indeed the amount of down-time was arguably<br />

greater through a combination of time required for maintenance<br />

tasks and the increased corrective maintenance<br />

required through maintenance induced defects. Over a<br />

period of 25 years the system evolved steadily and improved<br />

markedly. The basic interval was increased gradually<br />

from three to six months (significantly reducing<br />

workload and increasing availability), the number of mandatory<br />

items were reduced, and the ships’ engineers were<br />

given more authority to determine the maintenance to be<br />

undertaken and when. Job Information Cards (JIC) were<br />

produced giving explicit instructions as to the work content<br />

and listing the tools, and spare gear required. A muchimproved<br />

planning system was introduced and better<br />

control of the history of plant and machinery became available.<br />

The end result was the maintenance management<br />

system, which is still in use today.<br />

Despite the fact that the maintenance management system<br />

was probably the best preventative maintenance system<br />

available many problems still existed. Not least was<br />

the difficulty in modifying the system in the light of experience.<br />

When setting up a given routine it is natural for all<br />

concerned to proceed with caution. The design authority<br />

must depend initially on the advice of the manufacturer<br />

who will have designed, or modified, his product to suit<br />

naval requirements, and will thus propose a shorter period<br />

in which major maintenance procedures are carried out to<br />

protect his guarantee liabilities. He will also be interested<br />

in increasing his spares supply possibilities. The design<br />

authority itself will build in a safety factor in the belief that<br />

experience will allow it to reduce periodicity as reliability is<br />

proved. The maintenance authority, which produces the<br />

JIC, will also add in “belts and braces”. All of this is entirely<br />

natural and occurs throughout the maintenance field<br />

worldwide. The problem occurs when expertise suggests<br />

that there is scope for increasing periodicities. Almost inevitably<br />

inertia and caution, coupled frequently with a lack<br />

of verifiable information, will cause the decision to be delayed<br />

or deferred indefinitely.<br />

Nowhere in the system was a place for the reporting of availability,<br />

reliability and maintainability data to help in the<br />

process of reduction in maintenance effort. Several attempts<br />

to rectify this deficiency foundered, generally on<br />

the increase in workload imposed on ship’s staff.<br />

With the advent of the gas turbine frigate in 1977, with a<br />

much-reduced complement and high availability requirements,<br />

depended on simpler, more dependable electrical<br />

auxiliaries. Coupled with the first perception of the need to<br />

reduce operating costs if the service was to maintain its<br />

fleet in being, combined to force a review of maintenance<br />

policy in the late 1970’s.<br />

61


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

The Implications of Revised MARPOL<br />

Regulations on RAN Tankers<br />

By Lieutenant R.M. GISHUBL, RAN<br />

Due to increasing worldwide environmental awareness the<br />

international community has been tightening regulations<br />

for the protection of the environment. On 6 March 1992 the<br />

International Maritime Organisation adopted new amendments<br />

to its Marine Pollution (MARPOL) regulations. These<br />

regulations are designed to limit the amount of oil that could<br />

be released in the event of collision or grounding of oil tankers.<br />

These regulations apply to all new tankers ordered after<br />

6 July 1993 and existing tankers from 25 years after<br />

delivery.<br />

This article examines the impact of the MARPOL amendments<br />

on the <strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Australian</strong> <strong>Navy</strong>’s two tankers, HMA<br />

Ships SUCCESS and WESTRALIA. It will also look at the<br />

options available to the <strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Australian</strong> <strong>Navy</strong> and once the<br />

options have been outlined they will be compared using<br />

the squash ladder method to find which would give the<br />

most effective solution to the fleet.<br />

a double hull so if the outer hull is damaged the cargo tanks<br />

will remain intact preventing the escape of oil 1 . Other regulations<br />

limit the size and configuration of tanks and specify<br />

damage standards so that even if an oil tank is breached<br />

the outflow of oil is limited 2 .<br />

Due to the high cost of implementing these improvements<br />

smaller existing tankers are exempt from the requirement<br />

to have double hulls while larger tankers, above 30,000<br />

deadweight tons 3 , have 25 or 30 years from delivery depending<br />

on existing cargo tank protection 4 . Ships effected<br />

by these regulations that are over five years from delivery<br />

are subjected to increased regime of inspections to ensure<br />

the structural integrity of the ship. As SUCCESS is much<br />

smaller than the implementation deadweight, having a full<br />

load displacement of only 17,933 tons, this ship is not effected.<br />

WESTRALIA is larger with deadweight of 33,595<br />

tons and so falls under the regulations.<br />

Regrettably, due to the time and research limitations, the<br />

design or costing of options will not be examined. For the<br />

purpose of this article it is assumed that the <strong>Navy</strong> will continue<br />

with the two oceans <strong>Navy</strong> policy and every effort will<br />

be made to comply with the <strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Australian</strong> <strong>Navy</strong> Environment<br />

Policy. The aim is to determine impact of MARPOL<br />

4 amendments on the <strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Australian</strong> <strong>Navy</strong>’s tankers.<br />

Implications of MARPOL<br />

In order to prevent the escape of large quantities of oil escaping<br />

from tankers in the event of grounding or collision,<br />

with the consequent environmental damage such as the<br />

Exon Valdez incident in Alaska, stricter construction regulations<br />

have come into force. These requirements are contained<br />

in MARPOL Annex II and require oil tankers to have<br />

As WESTRALIA’s segregated ballast tanks are external wing<br />

tanks they protect the cargo tanks and as they extend the<br />

full depth of hull WESTRALIA qualifies has having partially<br />

protected cargo tanks 5 . Thus WESTRALIA has, at the latest,<br />

30 years from delivery to comply with these requirements.<br />

It is not clear when WESTRALIA was first delivered as<br />

meant by the MARPOL regulations, at the earliest it would<br />

be the date the ship was launched or any time up to commissioning<br />

in the RFA. In order to understand the difficulty<br />

in determining the delivery date an outline of the history<br />

of WESTRALIA will be useful.<br />

WESTRALIA was a merchant products tanker laid down in<br />

1974 by Cammell Laird shipbuilders of England as part of<br />

an order of four for the Hudson Fuel and Shipping Co. The<br />

1. MARPOL 73/78 Annex I regulation 13F<br />

2. MARPOL 73/78 Annex I regulations 22-25<br />

3. “Deadweight” (DW) means the difference in metric tons between the displacement of a ship in water of a specific gravity of 1.025 at the load waterline<br />

corresponding to the assigned summer freeboard (ie full load displacement) and the lightweight of the ship. ‘Lightweight’ means the displacement of a<br />

ship in metric tons without cargo, fuel, lubricating oil, ballast water, fresh water and feed water in tanks, consumable stores, and passengers and crew and<br />

their effects.<br />

4. MARPOL 73/78 Annex I regulation 13G<br />

5. See HMAS WESTRALIA Arrangement of Tanks<br />

62


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

order was cancelled but Cammell Laird completed two<br />

ships, being the only orders held by the company, with the<br />

then named Hudson Cavalier being launched 24 July 1975.<br />

In 1979 the ship was leased by the RN and re-named<br />

APPLELEAF and converted to the underway replenishment<br />

role to be a strategic tanker in the RFA being commissioned<br />

in November 1979. On 9 October 1989 the ship again<br />

changed hands, this time to the <strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Australian</strong> <strong>Navy</strong> and<br />

was renamed HMAS WESTRALIA.<br />

Prior to commissioning in the RFA the ship was modified<br />

from original Hudson design to incorporate a segregated<br />

ballast system that provided partial protection to cargo<br />

tanks so as to provide the highest level of environmental<br />

protection then envisaged. At the time of commissioning<br />

into the RFA these measures were not required to be implemented<br />

on a ship of that age. This commitment environmental<br />

protection by the RN has allowed the <strong>Royal</strong><br />

<strong>Australian</strong> <strong>Navy</strong> an extra five years before compliance with<br />

the revised MARPOL regulations. Without the protective<br />

positioning of the segregated ballast tanks WESTRALIA<br />

would need to comply somewhere from 2000 to 2004.<br />

Therefore depending on the legal delivery date of delivery<br />

WESTRALIA will need to comply with MARPOL until sometime<br />

between 2005 and 2009, at the latest.<br />

Options Available<br />

The requirement for WESTRALIA to comply with the revised<br />

MARPOL has been outlined above. There are four<br />

possible options available:<br />

Comparison of Options<br />

Doing Nothing vs Modifying WESTRALIA<br />

Modifying WESTRALIA has several advantages over relying<br />

on a claim on Sovereign Immunity. Immunity can only<br />

be claimed when implementation of such measures would<br />

impair the operations of the ship, in any case every effort<br />

should be made to comply as far as possible. Compliance<br />

with the MARPOL regulations would reduce the cargo capacity<br />

of WESTRALIA but as it would remain much greater<br />

than that of SUCCESS the limitation could be seen as administrative<br />

complications of ordering fuel more often<br />

rather than impairment to operations. Claiming this immunity<br />

would thus be doubtful.<br />

Due to doubtful validity of a claim of Sovereign Immunity<br />

the <strong>Navy</strong> may well find that no country will allow<br />

WESTRALIA to visit due to the environmental danger it<br />

could pose. This would effectively limit the capability of<br />

the <strong>Navy</strong> and WESTRALIA may be seen as a liability.<br />

In addition to this the <strong>Navy</strong> Environmental Policy Statement<br />

7 states “In achieving its mission, the <strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Australian</strong><br />

<strong>Navy</strong> will conduct all activities at sea, in the air, and ashore<br />

in an environmentally responsible manner, governed by the<br />

principles of: intergenerational equity, environmental best<br />

practice, and continual improvement.” As implementation<br />

of MARPOL is clearly best practice in protecting the environment<br />

not doing so would make the <strong>Navy</strong> hypercritical<br />

in espousing a green image.<br />

• Do nothing, this is the least cost option and would<br />

require the <strong>Navy</strong> to claim Sovereign Immunity under<br />

UNCLOS 6 .<br />

• Modify WESTRALIA, This would involve extensive<br />

modification of WESTRALIA to provide a double hull<br />

along the entire length of the cargo tank section. The<br />

current cargo wing tanks would need to be converted<br />

to either ballast tanks or void spaces while<br />

the centre cargo tanks would need a double bottom<br />

fitted.<br />

• Purchase a second hand tanker that complies with<br />

the updated regulations and modify it to undertake<br />

underway replenishment. This would require fitting<br />

RAS stations with associated winches and hose handling<br />

equipment.<br />

• Build a replacement tanker to fulfil all replenishment<br />

roles required to fully support the fleet.<br />

6. UN Convention Laws of Sea, section 10 of Part XII.<br />

7. <strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Australian</strong> <strong>Navy</strong> Corporate Environment Plan 1997-2002<br />

63


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

Modifying WESTRALIA vs Modifying<br />

Merchant Tanker<br />

Acquiring a Merchant tanker that has a double hull would<br />

provide many advantages over fitting a double bottom to<br />

WESTRALIA. The modifications to WESTRALIA would be<br />

extensive and complex and therefore costly. Among the<br />

more challenging tasks would be to re-route the cargo handling<br />

system while allowing adequate access to double<br />

bottoms for inspection and maintenance. Cargo wing tanks<br />

could not be used for cargo and a double bottom would<br />

need to be put in centre cargo tanks, significantly reducing<br />

cargo capacity and raising the centre of gravity when<br />

loaded. Reducing WESTRALIA’s cargo capacity might be<br />

seen as removing the ship’s only purpose, that of a strategic<br />

tanker, as its ability to support the fleet with stores, victuals,<br />

and ammunition are strictly limited.<br />

The modifications to allow Underway Replenishment of a<br />

merchant ship is much less extensive as the ship would already<br />

have cargo capacity and pumping arrangements for<br />

off loading fuel in port. Thus only the Replenishment At<br />

Sea rig would need to be added which is a relatively minor<br />

matter of adding a gantry, winches and hoses.<br />

In addition WESTRALIA is an old ship and already suffering<br />

form age, requiring increased maintenance, thus modification<br />

could only be a short-term measure. As the hull of<br />

the replacement merchant tanker would be relatively<br />

young the expected life would be much greater than a<br />

modified WESTRALIA so this would provide a much more<br />

effective solution.<br />

Modifying Merchant Tanker vs Building<br />

Purpose Built Replenishment Ship<br />

Building a new tanker to the <strong>Navy</strong>’s requirements will provide<br />

substantial benefits over acquiring and modifying a<br />

merchant tanker. This would enable the <strong>Navy</strong> to acquire a<br />

tanker that could keep up with the rest of the fleet in terms<br />

of speed and manoeuvrability. Moderate improvements in<br />

redundancy and separation of vital equipment would also<br />

dramatically improve surviveability and availability with<br />

only a small cost penalty.<br />

The major advantage of getting a purpose built tanker<br />

would be the ability to improve the support to the fleet of<br />

victuals, stores and ammunition, that at the moment is sadly<br />

lacking. There are also several other benefits as SUCCESS<br />

will be due for replacement in 10 to 20 years this would be a<br />

reasonable time frame for a second of class to be built.<br />

Having both tankers of the same design would make replacing<br />

SUCCESS much simpler and provide substantial<br />

training and logistic benefits.<br />

Conclusion<br />

Recent MARPOL amendments require double bottoms on<br />

most oil tankers to limit pollution in the event of collision or<br />

grounding. SUCCESS is not effected by these changes due<br />

to its small size. However the <strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Australian</strong> <strong>Navy</strong> has<br />

between eight and 12 years to either modify or replace<br />

WESTRALIA to comply with the new regulations.<br />

Building a new tanker to the <strong>Navy</strong>’s performance standards<br />

would provide the most effective solution to the <strong>Navy</strong>’s requirements.<br />

Not only would it be the best way of complying<br />

with the MARPOL requirements it would provide<br />

capability enhancement and improve the training and logistic<br />

overhead for the tanker fleet. As ship acquisition takes<br />

a considerable time, normally in the order of 10 years, it is<br />

highly desirable that the <strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Australian</strong> <strong>Navy</strong> starts planning<br />

a new tanker now.<br />

Added Postscript<br />

Recent International trends have shown that by using commercial<br />

classification Societies and commercial standards<br />

for the construction of naval vessels can save considerable<br />

amounts of money. Two good examples of this have been<br />

the <strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Navy</strong> Amphibious Assault ship OCEAN and the<br />

Dutch Spanish collaboration on LPD Rotterdam. Long held<br />

concerns over the lack of redundancy and separation of<br />

vital equipment on commercial build ships has been made<br />

redundant by the introduction of enhanced reliability class<br />

notations from most of the major classification societies.<br />

This introduces the traditional naval requirements of redundant<br />

systems separated by fire and flood boundaries; the<br />

ability to cross connect vital systems is also included.<br />

There are of course some military requirements that need<br />

to be incorporated such as weapons, communications and<br />

aviation facilities. A careful balance needs to be made between<br />

capability and cost, you can get a new 80 000 Dwt<br />

commercial tanker for $US 40 million ($AUS 85 million) or<br />

a full milspec AOR for $AUS 500 million, clearly a standard<br />

commercial tanker will not meet our needs but we can not<br />

afford a full milspec AOR or two, so a compromise needs to<br />

be made to achieve the capability we need at a cost we can<br />

afford. In this time of constrained budgets it is critical that<br />

we do not fall for the gold plated solution and ask for everything<br />

as the cost will be too high and we will end up with<br />

nothing.<br />

64


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

The ANZAC Solution to the<br />

Technical Regulation System<br />

By J. Lord & R. Milligan (ANZAC SPO)<br />

Preamble<br />

Question: How do you eat an elephant ?<br />

Answer: One bite at a time.<br />

This elephant eating adage is arguably the most apt introduction<br />

to the production of a solution to meet the RAN<br />

DI(N)LOG47-3 Technical Regulation System (TRS) requirements.<br />

This adage came to mind some months ago when<br />

the ANZAC System Program Office (SPO) TRS Team commenced<br />

down the long, winding and hilly Certification<br />

track. There is no doubt that the TRS beast is an animal<br />

which can be dissected in many ways. The following is a<br />

precis of the way the ANZAC SPO is approaching the eating<br />

and digestion of the TRS elephant.<br />

Background<br />

The RAN Technical Regulatory System is designed to provide<br />

demonstrably objective confidence to the Chief of<br />

<strong>Navy</strong>, the Government and the wider <strong>Australian</strong> public that<br />

Australia’s warships are materially fit for service and meet<br />

the RAN’s contemporary policies and standards for safety,<br />

survivability, performance and pollution control. This technical<br />

management system has been implemented following<br />

the decline in the ability of the Defence Material<br />

Organisation (DMO) and the RAN to maintain the DI(N)<br />

TECH 09-1 Design Authority (DA) and Design Approval Authority<br />

(DAA) regime.<br />

Aim<br />

The aim of this paper is to briefly describe the ANZAC SPO<br />

approach to fulfilling the requirements of the RAN TRS, as<br />

prescribed in DI(N) LOG 47-3.<br />

ANZAC SPO TRS Solution<br />

In order to achieve the final TRS solution, cooperation of<br />

various organisations has been required. These organisations,<br />

in addition to the ANZAC SPO, include the Director<br />

General <strong>Navy</strong> Certification, Safety & Acceptance Agency<br />

(DGNCSA), the ANZAC Capability Element Manager (CEM),<br />

and the ANZAC Class ship designers and builders.<br />

The ANZAC TRS solution will be implemented as a staged<br />

project. The project stages are:<br />

• Stage 1 - Establish the Certification Basis<br />

• Stage 2 - Implement the ANZAC System Program<br />

Office Quality Delivery System<br />

• Stage 3 - Implement /Adapt existing ANZAC SPO<br />

systems to maintain the TRS Framework<br />

• Stage 4 - Issue Ship Materiel Certificates<br />

Stage 1 - Establish the Certification<br />

Basis<br />

The Certification Basis is the set of standards, rules and<br />

regulations to which the ships were designed and built. The<br />

ANZAC Combat and Platform Systems Certification Basis’,<br />

are embodied in a document called the ANZAC Functional<br />

Baseline Specification (FBS). The purpose of the FBS is to<br />

capture the original functions required of the ship, that is<br />

the Director General Maritime Development requirements,<br />

the methods that these requirements will be tested, and<br />

the rules and regulations governing the design, build and<br />

future maintenance requirements for the ANZAC Class.<br />

Once developed, the FBS will be maintained in the ANZAC<br />

SPO Configuration Management Module (CMM) and will<br />

provide the basis for all future changes of the ANZAC Class<br />

ships. From the FBS document, future changes can be reviewed<br />

taking cognisance of the orginal design requirements,<br />

the original design rules (the Certification Basis) and<br />

the testing requirements for the designed functionality. The<br />

FBS will be available to all ANZAC stakeholders involved in<br />

maintaining or changing the Certification Basis through the<br />

internet functionality provided by CMM.<br />

Stage 2 - Implement the ANZAC SPO<br />

Delivery System for Quality<br />

The ANZAC SPO quality delivery system is designed to provide<br />

the quality framework to support TRS activities. The<br />

following activities will be undertaken in stage 2:<br />

• Review Quality status of nominated competent authorities.<br />

ANZAC authorities which will need to be<br />

deemed competent for this project include:<br />

65


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

Figure 1 - ANZAC Certification Basis<br />

• TENIX Defence Systems as Prime Contractor<br />

• SAAB Systems as Combat Systems Integrator<br />

• Blohm + Voss as Design Authority<br />

• Germanischer Lloyd providing Design Approval Authority<br />

information<br />

• Design and accreditation of the ANZAC Quality Delivery<br />

System<br />

Stage 3 - Implement the TRS Framework<br />

To permit future management of the policy stipulated in<br />

DI(N)LOG47-3, the existing framework including computer<br />

systems (AMPS and CMM), quality documents, resources<br />

and procedures are being utilised.<br />

The following activities are being progressed to achieve<br />

Stage 3:<br />

• Identify / produce resources for TLS Delivery System<br />

audits.<br />

• Develop and publish procedures for performing the<br />

DGNCSA audit functions.<br />

• Embedding certificate checklists as depot level<br />

Planned Maintenance items in AMPS.<br />

• Embedding the ANZAC SPO FBS into the Configuration<br />

Management Module.<br />

Stage 4 - Issue Ship Material<br />

Certificates<br />

The purpose of Stage 4 is to confirm that the ANZAC Class<br />

ships are actually being maintained throughout their entire<br />

life cycle to standards that reflect international civilian<br />

& military practice and the specific requirements of the<br />

RAN.<br />

• Revision of ABR 5454 - RAN Regulatory Framework<br />

and Certification Manual to reflect the ANZAC Class<br />

Through Life Support (TLS) environment.<br />

• Establishing the avenue for creation and management<br />

of a Certification Database within DGNCSA<br />

supporting the ANZAC Class.<br />

The issue of a set of Certificates, which are supported by<br />

an auditable and traceable series of checklists appropriate<br />

for RAN needs, and acceptable to a Commercial Classification<br />

Society, will objectively demonstrate that the RAN<br />

meets current community expectations and requirements.<br />

ANZAC Class candidate materiel certificates and their Com-<br />

66


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

ABR 5454 ANZAC Class Commercial Classfication Commercial<br />

Certificate Name Certificate Names Certificate names Class.<br />

Certificate<br />

Number<br />

1 Certificate of Class Nil Nil F101<br />

2 Hull Certificate Certificate of Class - Class Renewal Survey Hull<br />

hull (includes stability)<br />

(Includes Stability)<br />

3 Propulsion and Auxiliary Certificate of Class - Annual Class Survey F111<br />

Support Certificate Machinery (Includes Electrical) Of Hull & Machinery<br />

Periodic Automatic & Remote<br />

Controls Survey<br />

Class Renewal Survey Of<br />

Motor Plants<br />

F174<br />

F230<br />

4 Electrical Certificate<br />

5 Tonnage Measurement Certificate Tonnage Measurement Certificate Freeboard report F432<br />

6 Load Line Certificate Load Line Certificate Survey for load lines F430<br />

7 International Oil Pollution International Oil Pollution Periodical MARPOL annex 1 survey F326<br />

Prevention Certificate<br />

Prevention Certificate<br />

8 International Sewage Pollution International Sewage Pollution MARPOL Annex IV (Sewage) Survey F342<br />

Prevention Certificate<br />

Prevention Certificate<br />

9 Safety Management Certificate MHQ LOE / ORE certificate<br />

10 Safety Construction Certificate Record Of Approved Safety Equipment Record Of Approved Safety Equipment F410<br />

11 Safety Equipment Certificate (To be discussed with CSOW) Record Of Approved Safety Equipment F410<br />

Survey Of Radio Installation Gmdss<br />

Cargo ship safety equipment renewal<br />

Cargo ship safety equipment annual<br />

F441<br />

F411<br />

F412<br />

12 Mechanical Handling Certificate Cargo Gear Survey Report Cargo Gear Survey Report F130<br />

13 Cargo stowage and securing Cargo Gear Survey Report F130<br />

certificate<br />

14 Aviation Facilities Certificate Aviation Facilities Certificate Nil<br />

15 Magazine Compliance Certificate Magazine Compliance Certificate Nil<br />

16 Ammunition Certificate Ammunition Certificate Nil<br />

17 Command and Surveillance Command and Surveillance Nil<br />

Certificate<br />

Certificate<br />

18 Weapon certificate Weapon certificate Nil<br />

19 Habitability certificate Habitability certificate Nil<br />

20 Occupational Health And Occupational Health And Break into noise & vibration/water quality/HVAC/NBC/<br />

Safety Certificate Safety Certificate medical facilities/HAZMAT/safety markings/RADHAZ/<br />

laser safety/<br />

21 Materiel Performance Certificate Materiel Performance Certificate Nil<br />

22 Hyperbaric Equipment Hyperbaric Equipment Nil<br />

mercial Classification Certificate equivalents (where applicable)<br />

are illustrated in the table below.<br />

Conclusion<br />

In summary, it is hoped that through careful management<br />

of this complex issue, a coordinated solution will be<br />

achieved in order to provide confidence to the Chief of <strong>Navy</strong>,<br />

the Government and the wider <strong>Australian</strong> public that Australia’s<br />

ANZAC Class warships are materially fit for service<br />

and meet the RAN’s contemporary policies and standards<br />

for safety, survivability, performance and pollution control.<br />

Once these steps are achieved the elephant will have been<br />

eaten....<br />

67


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

Demographics, People and<br />

Technology—A Supervisors<br />

Perspective<br />

By LCDR Clyde Wheatland, RANR<br />

Demographics is the science of vital and social statistics of<br />

populations of people. These statistics include births and<br />

deaths, fertility rates, numbers of people at each age, trends<br />

etc. It can probably now be extended into the examination<br />

of the attitudes, desires and needs of those people and how<br />

they change.<br />

Why is this article here? I have written this because it<br />

appears to me that while there is a sort of vague general<br />

understanding of how people matter in the RAN, there is<br />

not much widespread understanding of the details.<br />

Why should you care? For a start, you are part of those<br />

statistics and some understanding of what they represent<br />

can help you understand how you fit into society. Most of<br />

you who read this are relatively young with a long working<br />

life ahead of you. While predicting the future is an uncertain<br />

business, some understanding of what might lie ahead<br />

may help in your decision-making processes. I have no intention<br />

of giving great lists of numbers. I will write mostly<br />

about trends. I also intend to write about a subset of the<br />

<strong>Australian</strong> population; the RAN Uniformed Technical People.<br />

I will also mention some of the things you might be<br />

able to do to help match the demand for people to the supply.<br />

First, Australia as a Whole. This is a selection of aspects.<br />

It is not complete and, in particularly where attitudes, desires<br />

and needs are mentioned, is often generalised. By this<br />

I mean that not everyone in the population is like this.<br />

The Population is Getting Older. This results from a number<br />

of causes including a reducing fertility rate (about 1.6 for<br />

women), increasing life expectancy and reduced immigration.<br />

The <strong>Australian</strong> population haven’t made enough babies<br />

in this country to replace our losses since 1977.<br />

However, despite this the population is likely to grow until<br />

around 2030 mainly through immigration. One of the consequences<br />

of the aging population is the activity you may<br />

have noted around superannuation because these old people<br />

will need to be funded and there will be a smaller base<br />

of workers to do the work.<br />

Attitudes Are Changing. Compared to the baby boomers<br />

that came before them Generation X (born between roughly<br />

1960 and<br />

1980) have<br />

less loyalty<br />

to organisations<br />

and institutions<br />

and less respect<br />

for authority. In addition they worry less about financial<br />

and material security and so are more willing to<br />

take risks in moving from job to job. They depend more on<br />

relationships with friends than their families. Generation<br />

Y, born after 1980 are probably similar to Generation X but<br />

the characteristics are more pronounced.<br />

The Economy. It depends on whom you believe but at<br />

present I foresee the <strong>Australian</strong> economy continuing to<br />

grow. This could be more or less continuously for the next<br />

twenty years at a rate, which will exceed the growth rate<br />

of the population. Productivity gains are hard to predict<br />

however, if I assume that there will not be dramatic changes,<br />

it would appear that the demand for workers is likely to<br />

increase. Many of these jobs may well be in technical areas<br />

in which there is already a shortage of software and computer<br />

people. So technical occupations are already at a premium.<br />

Of course, it is likely that most of the world will be<br />

experiencing similar growth. The OECD countries are suffering<br />

from similar or greater effects on their populations<br />

and increasing international mobility will see more <strong>Australian</strong>s<br />

moving to overseas jobs. This is part of Globalisation.<br />

The Effect of Technology. When the RAN first looked at<br />

TTP 92 courses it visualised a ship more technically advanced<br />

than an existing ANZAC or COLLINS with the technical<br />

crew number about twice that of a FREMANTLE. It<br />

was thought, at the time, that the sophistication of communications<br />

gear would see the demise of the communications<br />

technician. It foresaw programmable logical<br />

controller control on machinery/equipment and integrated<br />

computer networks. Some of these technological advances<br />

have sort of come to pass but others still wanting. However,<br />

one effect the RAN started to experience with the FFGs in<br />

the 80’s is the partial and increasing replacement of the twolegged<br />

microprocessor, otherwise known as personnel eg<br />

the evaporator watchkeeper by a black box that needs no<br />

68


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

training. The consequence of this is that ships have a topheavy<br />

technical manpower structure at sea. Put simply,<br />

there are not enough junior sailor positions at sea to provide<br />

the follow on requirements to the more senior positions.<br />

RAN Technical Manpower Demographics. Last year the<br />

RAN recruited about thirty percent of an MT and ET requirement<br />

that was already too small to make up for existing<br />

shortcomings. So far this year recruiting have done<br />

better, but last month (April 2001) the ETs received 6 out of<br />

18 and MTs received 27 out of 30. It is still too early to call<br />

the long-term trend on the likelihood of recruiting the numbers<br />

we want. Watch how recruiting goes. Fortunately, the<br />

RAN has a couple of hundred SMN and AB MTs not in billets<br />

but the spare ETs have now been used to fill positions.<br />

Most of the MTs appear to have been placed at sea. However,<br />

there are not enough bunks at sea to train people for<br />

promotion to the higher ranks. Trainees are presumably in<br />

the passageways and tiller-flats. However, these people<br />

were recruited to grow the category and so we are likely to<br />

have problems in the future.<br />

What Will Happen? In the short term look forward to minimum<br />

time for promotion for most sailors in the middle<br />

ranks and anticipate more people of the next lowest rank<br />

to the billet designated rank being posted in to billets. Probably,<br />

personnel will see the provisions for acting rank being<br />

increasingly used. If recruiting is successful these effects<br />

will slowly dissipate. If shortfalls persist workforce personnel<br />

will need to take other actions. Understand that improvements<br />

will take several years. In the longer term,<br />

anticipate more women in the work force because they are<br />

becoming the largest under utilised recruitment pool.<br />

managed. Due to this shortcoming, it is particularly important<br />

that the junior sailors use their time at sea effectively.<br />

This probably means that fairly intensive management of<br />

engineering personnel is required as self management is<br />

not likely to provide sufficient quality throughput to maintain<br />

the workforce.<br />

If you are ashore, help AB and SMN to progress competencies<br />

and gain experience as much as possible. This will assist<br />

those at sea in that phase of training. For those in more<br />

senior positions keep abreast of how manpower management<br />

is progressing, contact staff at Directorate of Naval<br />

Personnel Requirements (<strong>Engineering</strong> & Logistic) and encourage<br />

your juniors to do the same.<br />

For all supervisors, keep in mind what is happening in the<br />

wider population. Increased industry demand for technicians<br />

will lead to increased pressures to leave the RAN whilst<br />

making recruiting more difficult. Retention thus becomes<br />

ever more important. Lack of respect for authority, higher<br />

expectations and education mean that abuses of power and<br />

position will be even less tolerable than now. While stopping<br />

abuses might not help retention, continuing them will<br />

make it worse. Check out your supervisory style. It might<br />

be that you are over supervising and directing. Can you<br />

increase the level of trust in your workplace? Are you willing<br />

to ask your subordinates what you could do to improve<br />

their working conditions and environment by changing<br />

your behaviour? Doing this might increase your subordinates’<br />

control of their circumstances. This has a major effect<br />

on morale and stress and could help retention. While<br />

you are at it, are you brave enough to ask your peers how<br />

they see you could improve? Are you brave enough to return<br />

the favour?<br />

What the Policy Areas Have Done. Already, some<br />

specialisations eg. Mk 92 and FFG MT (E) are critical. The<br />

reasons for this are mostly outside the above issues but are<br />

indicative of what the engineering community will have to<br />

manage in the future. NAVSYSCOM personnel have discussed<br />

restructuring crews so that they are more easily<br />

sustained. This needs more development. In addition alternative<br />

methods of management that will allow greater flexibility<br />

are being developed. However, many of these<br />

activities will take some time to produce an outcome.<br />

What You Can Do? If you are at sea, look at your engineering<br />

crew makeup. Roughly speaking if each rank is<br />

not half the number of the one below it or less, then it may<br />

be too difficult to sustain. That is, for each CPO, you need<br />

two PO, four LS and eight AB/SMN. Some variation is allowed<br />

but most ships are a long way from this structure.<br />

Can you redistribute crew responsibilities to follow this ratio?<br />

The lack of available bunk at sea is well known so supervisors<br />

will need to look at how that is going to be<br />

These personnel issues provide opportunities as well as<br />

problems. The trick will be to find these chances while<br />

managing the problems.<br />

About the Author<br />

LCDR Wheatland RANR used to be full time <strong>Navy</strong>. He has<br />

worked on TTP92 but he promises that only half its problems<br />

were his fault. He has a BE Mechanical and an MBA<br />

from which he has nearly recovered. He left the RAN and<br />

sailed around the Pacific on a yacht for eighteen months. He<br />

has done some consulting with other organisations and is<br />

reasonably sure the answer is not out there. Now he is working<br />

in the category sponsors area because it is the biggest<br />

puzzle of its type in Australia<br />

69


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

Dedicated to the Engine Room<br />

Depts., H.M.A. Corvettes<br />

(Sung to the tune of “Jingle Bells”)<br />

The bells on our corvette are ringing, ringing with delight;<br />

We’re going into harbour, to stay there over night.<br />

Full ahead and half and slow, then stop and full astern we go,<br />

But when the panic really starts, the captain lets us know.<br />

With his-<br />

CHORUS-<br />

Jingle bells, jingle bells, jingle all the day,<br />

Captain’s having lots of fun, round and round the bay.<br />

Ships steer clear, sailors cheer, “battlers” stand aside;<br />

It takes a day’s manoeuvring. Who said the seas are wide?<br />

Jimmy throws lines for’d, Guns looks after aft,<br />

Sailors run around the decks with fenders, looking daft.<br />

Buffer leaves his mah-jongg, to see what he can do;<br />

But when they find the lines too short, the captain comes in view.<br />

With his-<br />

(Repeat first chorus)<br />

The third or fourth attempt, when reached, is always best to see;<br />

By then their nerves have settled down, they’re sailors to a “T”.<br />

The ship gets into place at last, bent plates and dented strakes,<br />

And before they go to tsea gain they argue out mistakes.<br />

With their-<br />

LAST CHORUS-<br />

Jingle bells, jingle bells, they’re finished for today;<br />

Captain’s had his day of fun, round and round the bay.<br />

Jimmy’s learnt a little more, Guns had lessons too;<br />

In 1955, I’m sure, they’ll show us what to do.<br />

“THE MACAROON”<br />

Reproduced with permission<br />

from “H.M.A.S. Mk. IV”, published<br />

for the <strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Australian</strong><br />

<strong>Navy</strong> by the <strong>Australian</strong> War<br />

Memorial, Canberra, A.C.T. 1945<br />

70


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

Ha Ha Pages<br />

This edition’s funny pages are dedicated to engineers everywhere. If you have something intelligent<br />

to submit, this section is not for you! If, on the other hand you have something foolish and silly, send<br />

it in to the Editor.<br />

Three engineers and three accountants are travelling by<br />

train to a conference. At the station, the three accountants<br />

each buy tickets and watch as the three engineers buy only<br />

a single ticket.<br />

“How are three people going to travel on only one ticket?”<br />

asks an accountant. “Watch and you’ll see,” answers an engineer.<br />

They all board the train. The accountants take their<br />

respective seats but all three engineers cram into a restroom<br />

and close the door behind them.<br />

Shortly after the train has departed, the conductor comes<br />

around collecting tickets. He knocks on the restroom door<br />

and says, “Ticket, please.” The door opens just a crack and a<br />

single arm emerges with a ticket in hand. The conductor<br />

takes it and moves on.<br />

The accountants saw this and agreed it was quite a clever<br />

idea. So after the conference, the accountants decide to copy<br />

the engineers on the return trip and save some money (being<br />

clever with money, and all). When they get to the station<br />

they buy a single ticket for the return trip.<br />

To their astonishment, the engineers don’t buy a ticket at<br />

all. “How are you going to travel without a ticket?” says one<br />

perplexed accountant. “Watch and you’ll see,” answers an<br />

engineer. When they board the train the three accountants<br />

cram into a restroom and the three engineers cram into<br />

another one nearby. The train departs.<br />

Shortly afterward, one of the engineers leaves his restroom<br />

and walks over to the restroom where the accountants are<br />

hiding. He knocks on the door and says, “Ticket, please.”<br />

An engineer dies and reports to the pearly gates. St. Peter<br />

checks his dossier and says, “Ah, you’re an engineer — you’re<br />

in the wrong place.”<br />

So, the engineer reports to the gates of hell and is let in.<br />

Pretty soon, the engineer gets dissatisfied with the level of<br />

comfort in hell, and starts designing and building improvements.<br />

After awhile, they’ve got air conditioning and flush<br />

toilets and escalators, and the engineer is a pretty popular<br />

guy.<br />

One day, God calls Satan up on the telephone and says with<br />

a sneer, “So, how’s it going down there in hell?”<br />

Satan replies, “Hey, things are going great. We’ve got air conditioning<br />

and flush toilets and escalators, and there’s no<br />

telling what this engineer is going to come up with next.”<br />

God replies, “What??? You’ve got an engineer? That’s a mistake<br />

— he should never have gotten down there; send him<br />

up here.”<br />

Satan says, “No way.” I like having an engineer on the staff,<br />

and I’m keeping him.”<br />

God says, “Send him back up here or I’ll sue.”<br />

Satan laughs uproariously and answers, “Yeah, right. And<br />

just where are YOU going to get a lawyer?”<br />

Two engineering students were walking across campus<br />

when one said, “Where did you get such a great bike?”<br />

The second engineer replied, “Well, I was walking along<br />

yesterday minding my own business when a beautiful<br />

woman rode up on this bike. She threw the bike to the<br />

ground, took off all her clothes and said, “Take what you<br />

want.”<br />

The second engineer nodded approvingly, “Good choice; the<br />

clothes probably wouldn’t have fit.”<br />

This one’s for the Army!<br />

A sergeant major was brilliant in military matters, but lacked<br />

a few social graces. One day he called a soldier in to the<br />

office and said “Kramer, your grandmother died.”<br />

The soldier fell apart. After he left, the colonel told the sergeant<br />

major, “You could have been a little more tactful. I<br />

have some books at home that could help you.”<br />

The sergeant major read the half-dozen books lent him by<br />

the colonel and was ready for the next crisis. Private Taylor’s<br />

grandfather had passed away.<br />

The next morning, at reveille, the sergeant major said, “Men,<br />

all those with a grandfather still living, one pace....... back -<br />

ward..... MARCH..... WHERE ARE YOU GOING Private Taylor!”<br />

71


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

The Rivet<br />

By CMDR Mick Brice, RAN<br />

The scene: A Saturday afternoon<br />

in Singapore’s Sambawang Basin.<br />

The duty <strong>Engineering</strong> Senior<br />

Sailor of a Daring Class destroyer<br />

sits in HQ1 with his feet up reading<br />

a back copy of the “Fleet<br />

Maintenance Bulletin”. All is<br />

quiet except for the hum of ventilation<br />

fans.<br />

Keeping the Chief’s attention is<br />

the story of how, during WWII, trawlers operating as minesweepers<br />

off northern Australia occasionally suffered from<br />

the loss of a rivet and the consequent ingress of water. The<br />

story went on to explain the accepted fix. The water in that<br />

area was warm and the draft of the vessel shallow so the<br />

engineer had something poked through the hole in the hull<br />

from the inside while he went over the side with an appropriately<br />

sized bolt fitted with a metal washer and leather<br />

washer. Having located the marker he pushed the bolt<br />

through the hole where-upon someone on the inside fitted<br />

a leather washer, metal washer and nut. The combination<br />

was then tightened to fix the leak until the next slipping.<br />

The Chief lay the magazine on his chest, leaned back a little<br />

further in the chair and let his mind slowly drift to the<br />

trawler, its lost rivet and the simple repair.<br />

“Flood, flood, flood” called the urgent pipe, “Flood, flood,<br />

flood. Flood in the Inflammables Store. Duty watch close<br />

up 3 Papa”.<br />

The return journey of thirty years passed in an instant and<br />

the Chief quickly made his way to the flood scene. There,<br />

the store room lobby was awash with bobbing tins of paint,<br />

Brasso and other dross and the water continued to flow<br />

over the combing from inside the Inflammables Store. The<br />

water was salty and judging by the rate of its flow into the<br />

lobby, the leak was relatively small. Hands were despatched<br />

to check the suction system - not for use in pumping out<br />

the compartment; even the greatest optimist in a Daring<br />

wouldn’t have considered that! It was, however, possible<br />

for the water to be leaking from a firepump via the suction<br />

system and so a valve cover was removed near the lobby<br />

to prove whether it was the<br />

source or not. It wasn’t and so,<br />

hands were despatched to check<br />

the compartments surrounding<br />

the Store. A submersible pump<br />

was brought to the scene and the<br />

bulk of the water cleared from<br />

the lobby and then the store.<br />

With the water level lowered, the<br />

bedraggled collection of cans,<br />

some dating back to before the ship’s commissioning, were<br />

removed and a search by hand was undertaken - the water<br />

being somewhat murky. Lo and behold, in the corner of<br />

the compartment closest to the keel, a hole was found -<br />

round and about one inch in diameter.<br />

Daring Class destroyers were said to be the first all-welded<br />

construction however the hole felt surprisingly like it had<br />

been purposely formed rather than corroded to a round<br />

shape. Drawings were sought and in the meantime the<br />

flood was contained by the use of a small pump fitted to<br />

the end of an electric drill - courtesy of a shipwright’s visit<br />

to Knock and Kirby’s last time in Sydney!<br />

Standard fix for holes in the hull included, fitting a damage<br />

control plug securely into the hole, boxing in an area around<br />

the plug and then filling it with quick setting cement. (The<br />

amount of QS cement carried in RAN vessels was directly<br />

proportional to their age!). The Chief steadied the duty<br />

watch, which was readying to gather the necessary materials.<br />

“Leader, get me two one inch bolts and nuts and four<br />

large flat washers to suit.” Where to get leather? None in<br />

the Engineer’s Ready Use Store, none in the known comein-handy<br />

stowages. “Jones, you help with the steering gear,<br />

are there any cups left over from the transmitter repair?”<br />

Sure enough, in demonstration of the soundness of the<br />

policy of throwing nothing away that might come in handy,<br />

four used leather cups from the steering gear transmitter<br />

were located.<br />

The draft on a Daring Class destroyer is about 20 feet and<br />

as there were no divers onboard or on ships nearby it was<br />

decided to use the ships breathing apparatus which oper-<br />

72


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

ated underwater to a limited degree. At this point the Engineer<br />

Officer returned onboard and found near the gangway<br />

an eager team of stokers preparing grease, bolts,<br />

stringlines etc. He was appraised of the situation and the<br />

proposed impending fix and was then led to the site of the<br />

flood.<br />

There were rivets in an all-welded Daring hull. The lost<br />

rivet was eventually replaced. The onboard stock of QC<br />

cement increased as the ship aged and copies of the Fleet<br />

Maintenance Bulletin were thereafter sought out and studied<br />

by the <strong>Engineering</strong> Department - a proven source of<br />

knowledge on interesting and useful engineering practice.<br />

The end of the story sees the Engineer’s acceptance of the<br />

“novel” idea of the bolt fix and a call for a wider search for<br />

divers. The Chief proudly sees the bolt fitted and he and<br />

the duty watch gain pleasure from achieving such a tidy<br />

job, which would be readily accessible for future, more permanent<br />

repair. The Engineer, however, ever cautious, then<br />

covers his bets by having the bolt boxed in and covered with<br />

quick setting cement!<br />

73


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

University of Technology–Sydney<br />

What are the Aims?<br />

Master of <strong>Engineering</strong> Management<br />

The course is designed for engineers or technologists who perform, or who<br />

aspire to perform, management tasks while maintaining currency in their<br />

technical specialities. The Master of <strong>Engineering</strong> Management (MEM) program<br />

places a greater emphasis on the interface between technology and<br />

management than does the traditional MBA. Whilst the MEM program is<br />

formally administered by the Faculty of <strong>Engineering</strong>, there is close<br />

collaboration with the Faculty of Business and the <strong>Australian</strong> Graduate School<br />

of <strong>Engineering</strong> Innovation in its presentation and development.<br />

Graduate Certificate in <strong>Engineering</strong> Management<br />

Many working engineers and technologists do not have the time to commit<br />

to a full Masters course. However, the demand for management knowledge<br />

amongst engineers is increasing. The Graduate Certificate in <strong>Engineering</strong><br />

Management is designed to provide a four-subject package of management<br />

knowledge which can be tailored by the student to fit their immediate needs.<br />

All the subjects are taken from the Master of <strong>Engineering</strong> Management (MEM)<br />

and may be credited towards the MEM on successful completion to that<br />

program. This is also a convenient entry point for candidates without<br />

a degree.<br />

Who by?<br />

The MEM and Graduate Certificate are presented by the UTS Graduate<br />

School of <strong>Engineering</strong> in cooperation with the UTS Faculty of Business and<br />

the <strong>Australian</strong> Graduate School of <strong>Engineering</strong> Innovation (AGSEI).<br />

How is the Course Structured?<br />

Master of <strong>Engineering</strong> Management (48cp)<br />

Core: A minimum of 36 credit points must be completed from the following<br />

subjects:<br />

cp<br />

49001 Judgement and Decision Making 6<br />

49003 Economic Evaluation 6<br />

22747 Accounting for Managerial Decisions 6<br />

21813 Managing People 6<br />

49002 Project Management 6<br />

49004 Systems <strong>Engineering</strong> for Managers 6<br />

49309 Quality Planning and Analysis 6<br />

Graduate Certificate in <strong>Engineering</strong> Management (24cp)<br />

A minimum of 18cp from the core of the MEM and the remainder from the<br />

core or electives.<br />

MEM subjects are normally offered in the evening. Core subjects, the project,<br />

and many electives are also offered by distance mode.<br />

Technical or Management subjects may be taken as electives<br />

In the Faculty of <strong>Engineering</strong>, subjects are available in the following majors:<br />

Control <strong>Engineering</strong><br />

Energy Planning and Policy<br />

<strong>Engineering</strong> Management<br />

Environmental <strong>Engineering</strong> and<br />

Management<br />

Groundwater Management<br />

Information Systems <strong>Engineering</strong><br />

Local Government <strong>Engineering</strong><br />

Manufacturing <strong>Engineering</strong> and<br />

Management<br />

Software <strong>Engineering</strong><br />

Structural <strong>Engineering</strong><br />

Telecommunications engineering<br />

Water <strong>Engineering</strong><br />

Flexible Options:<br />

• Home study using study<br />

guides<br />

• Evenings on campus<br />

• At work for corporate<br />

groups<br />

• 8 subjects or 6 subjects and<br />

a project<br />

Admission<br />

Requirements<br />

An undergraduate degree in<br />

engineering or other<br />

technological/applied science<br />

field. In some cases work<br />

experience may be required.<br />

Those without a degree, but who<br />

can demonstrate relevant<br />

experience and a capability to<br />

undertake graduate studies, may<br />

enter via the Graduate<br />

Certificate with full credit in the<br />

MEM on successful completion.<br />

Closing Dates<br />

Applications made before 31<br />

October for Autumn Semester<br />

and 31 May for Spring Semester<br />

will have preference. Later<br />

applications are welcomed.<br />

Inquiries<br />

Graduate Students Adviser<br />

Graduate School of <strong>Engineering</strong><br />

University of Technology,<br />

Sydney<br />

PO box 123<br />

Broadway NSW 2007<br />

Phone (02) 9514 2606<br />

Fax (02) 9514 2549<br />

email: gse-info@eng.uts.edu.au<br />

Information on GSE courses and<br />

programs is also available on<br />

the internet:<br />

http://www.eng.uts.edu.au<br />

74


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

75


Naval <strong>Engineering</strong> Bulletin • June 2001<br />

76

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!